Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o"clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O. BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

WALTON AND WEYBRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow at Seven o"clock.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Elderly People (Grouped Housing Schemes)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government to what extent his Department"s suggestions to local authorities building accommodation for elderly people include the provision of a common room; and whether he will give consideration to this.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): Local authorities have been advised by circular that in grouped housing schemes for the elderly, particularly in blocks of flatlets, it is useful to have a common room. This advice seems right.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this advice does not seem to be followed very extensively? Is he aware that even where there are groups

of small houses it is desirable to have common rooms since old people living on their own, for example, widows, can be lonely even in a grouped housing scheme?

Mr. Mellish,: I entirely agree with the hon. Member, and according to information given to us the vast majority of local authorities provide a common room when they build these flatlets.

Gas, Electricity and Transport Boards (Rating)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is now able to announce the conclusions of the Committee set up to examine the formula governing the rating of gas, electricity, and transport boards.

Mr. Mellish: No, Sir. The Working Party on rating and valuation is still considering the formulae and a considerable amount of work remains to be done.

Mr. Shepherd: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House some idea when this Committee is likely to report? The circumstances and the conditions under which this legislation was previously enacted have changed so much in recent years that it is grossly unfair to local authorities that they should continue a moment longer than is necessary.

Mr. Mellish: This Working Party was reconvened in the autumn of 1963 and adjourned in January, 1964. It made requests to the local authorities and waited 10 months before it finally received replies from them. It has now started considering the matter again and, therefore, it is not the Working Party"s fault.

Petrol and Diesel Oil (Tax)

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what estimate he has now made of the total expenditure which will fall upon local authorities in 1965–66 as a result of the extra 6d. on petrol and diesel oil.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): My right hon. Friend has not the information upon which to base an estimate and he does not think that the work involved


in obtaining estimates from all local authorities would be
warranted.

Mr. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the average rate increase for just over 6 percent. of the authorities is over 13 percent. as opposed to only 8 percent. last year? Would he not agree that the 6d. increase in the fuel tax, in addition to various other Government measures, played a very great part in this increase?

Mr. MacColl: It is unlikely to have been as much as a 1d. rate anywhere.

New Towns

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he intends to hand over responsibility for the new towns to the appropriate local authority.

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on his proposals for the transfer of the new towns to the appropriate local authorities.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): The building of the new towns must continue to be the responsibility of development corporations. Like my hon. Friends I am not satisfied with the existing arrangements by which the assets of the corporations are transferred to the Commission for the New Towns when the building is substantially completed. But the change they desire would require new legislation.

Mrs. Short: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to the Press report of a delegation which he received from the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors last December? The Press report says:
The Minister made it clear that he was in favour of planning control remaining in the hands"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are all kinds of difficulties about this. One is that verbatim quotations of that character are not permissible in a question. The other is that I am not sure what is following from the question founded on what is in the Press.

Mrs. Short: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend

remember that at that meeting he said that he would hand over responsibility for new towns at the earliest possible moment to the local authorities?

Mr. Crossman: I think that my hon. Friend is confusing the question of assets with the question of management and control. It is important to make this distinction. When it is a question of transferring assets, say the total value of capital which is being put into a new town, this is a major question which requires legislation. When it is a question of handing over a particular undertaking, legislation permits the corporation, as of today, to hand it over to the local authority, or indeed to hand over the control of housing as distinct from its ownership. I have urged each corporation to be anxious to phase its planning of the transfer of management to the U.D.C. or R.D.C. as soon as possible when it suits it, but I have warned each of them that it is quite unrealistic to talk of the transfer of assets.

Mr. Corfield: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that in many cases this will mean that the councillors will almost exclusively be council house tenants when the transfer takes place? What proposals has he for altering Section 76 of the Local Government Act, 1933?

Mr. Crossman: There is a real problem here of the monopoly landlord, and it is precisely a question which I have asked the corporations and the local authorities to discuss in planning the phased take-over which. I think, has anyway got to take place.

Mr. Solomons: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side will welcome the day when most of the persons resident in rented property are council tenants?

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that the local authority would be the owner not only of the council houses but of the factories also, and would it not be wrong for a locally elected authority to be a supreme landlord of that kind?

Mr. Crossman: These are all problems which have to be taken into account when we are considering the final development of self-government in


a new town. It is a stage which we have reached at present with only two of the new towns, which have been handed over to the Commission, and there are two which are nearing that stage. In all those four cases I am anxious to establish good precedents for a sensible transfer because I am sure that the kind of highly autocratic centralised control required for the rapid construction of a new town is quite unsuitable for the permanent self-government of the kind of community we have there.

Leicestershire (Local Government Boundaries)

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to come to a decision on the Local Government Boundary Commission"s recommendations for Leicestershire.

Mr. Crossman: I am hoping to announce my decision on the Commission"s proposals for Leicester before very long.

Mr. Farr: Does the Minister realise that it is now more than five years since the local Government Commission made its first recommendation and there is a real danger, now that there are nearly 40,000 extra people in the County of Leicester, that when he does come to a decision it will be based on inaccurate and out-dated information?

Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the danger of delay. Perhaps I may say to the hon. Gentleman that, if it is five years since the Commission"s first recommendation, it is only five months since I took office. I have been studying this, and the hon. Gentleman will realise—I know that he has studied the problem carefully—that it is one of the most complex and difficult and, if I may say so, important decisions in relation to the Local Government Commission which I have to take. I promise him that it will not be very long delayed.

Rating (Interim Relief) Act, 1964

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will assist local authorities to apply the Rating (Interim Relief) Act, 1964, by issuing guidance to them regarding the application of the Act in cases of hardship.

Mr. Crossman: No, Sir. The Report of the Allen Committee underlines the difficulty of giving a satisfactory definition of hardship. For the present at least, we must leave it to rating authorities to reach their own conclusions in the light of local circumstances.

Mr. Farr: A number of local authorities are having great difficulty in working the Rating (Interim Relief) Act, 1964, purely on the question of the definition of hardship. Now that he has the evidence of the Allen Committee before him on this very subject, would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to issue a small pamphlet of guidance to local authorities so that they can put this very useful little Act to better work?

Mr. Crossman: Whether the Act was more than a piece of political window-dressing is another question. A little pamphlet to define the Allen Committee"s definition of hardship would be an oversimplification of one of the most abstruse and learned Reports I have ever tried to read. I quote only one sentence from it which shows how difficult it was for the Committee to come to a conclusion:
The mass of evidence we have had on hardship makes it clear that this is a relative and subjective concept; we received more expressions of opinion on what hardship is not than on what it is.
On that sort of basis, the pamphlet would have to be either rather thin or rather large.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not what the right hon. Gentleman has just said support my hon. Friend"s suggestion that this is a subject on which he could be helpful to local authorities by, whatever the difficulties, helping them on the construction of this provision which, as he will appreciate, is of great importance to a limited number of unfortunate people?

Mr. Crossman: I will consider that, but the greatest help I can give is to hurry on with the reform of the rating system and of local government finance.

Industrial Undertakings, Rowley Regis (Noise)

Mr. Henderson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware of the interference with the living conditions of residents


in the Tividale area of Rowley Regis due to noise from industrial undertakings; and what steps he will take to deal with nuisance caused by noise.

Mr. MacColl: One complaint about this was made to the Department last April. It is for the local authority, not my right hon. Friend, to take steps to abate a nuisance, and he understands that they have persuaded the firms concerned to take measures which should result in a considerable improvement.

Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while most industrial firms use the best practicable means to abate noise from their factories, in some places they do not succeed and this nuisance continues? Would he ask the Minister to consider strengthening the powers of the local authorities and providing assistance to them for the provision of soundproof windows, as has been done in residential areas surrounding London Airport?

Mr. MacColl: If an industrial firm is making the best efforts it can to abate nuisance, that is a good defence. Aggrieved occupiers have power to take their complaints to court themselves without waiting for the local authority.

Mr. Horner: Is my hon. Friend aware that, throughout the country, there is growing revolt by residents against unnecessary industrial noise? Will he consider again the recommendations of the Wilson Report to see what can be done further to strengthen the powers of local authorities?

Mr. MacColl: There is not much general evidence that the powers under the anti-noise legislation are not proving effective where they are used.

Ritz Hotel, Piccadilly

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what advice he received from his Advisory Committee on Historic Buildings in connection with the listing of the Ritz Hotel, Piccadilly, as a building of historic interest.

Mr. Crossman: The Committee first recommended that the Ritz Hotel should be listed as a building of special architectural or historic interest in 1960. Action however was postponed. When

this was brought to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) I at once gave instructions that this omission should be put right in order to ensure that any threat to this unique example of Edwardian taste should be brought to the attention of the planning authority.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having taken the action he took, but is it not the case that the Advisory Committee suggested that the hotel should be listed and that, without reference to either him or to his predecessor, this was reversed and it was decided not to list it? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that decisions of this sort, whatever the merits, should be brought to the Minister concerned? Will he take the necessary action to ensure that this is done in future?

Mr. Crossman: It is a fact that the Advisory Committee made its recommendation in 1960. What happened between then and autumn, 1964, is a matter for my predecessors and not for me.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Rhodes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now take action on the question of the reorganisation of local government finance, in the light of the findings of the Allen Committee; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now take steps to relieve the rate burden in those areas that have little industry and a high proportion of retired people.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to relieve local authorities of a further part of the burden of educational expenditure.

Mr. Boston: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress he is making with his review of the rating system; and whether he will make a statement about his specific proposals for reforming the system.

Mr. Richard: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, whether he will now make a statement on the reorganisation of local government finance, in view of the Report of the Allen Committee.

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in view of the heavy increases in rates this year, he will bring forward early legislation to ensure a fairer distribution of this burden.

Mr. Murton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) whether, in view of the delay in implementing the policy of giving early relief to ratepayers by transferring a larger part of the burden of public expenditure from local authorities to the Exchequer, he will take steps to arrange for a system of grants to be made to those towns where the proportion of domestic rateable value in relation to commercial and industrial rateable values is higher than the national average;
(2) what plans he has for the alleviation of the heavy share of the rate placed on domestic ratepayers.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what are his proposals about the burden of education costs which is falling on local authorities; and if he will make a statement on future Government policy in this field.

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made in his examination of the problem of local government finance; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now make a statement on local government finance, in view of the urgency of the problem.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he will propose changes in local government finance following his consideration of the Allen Report; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crossman: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer this Question and Nos. 23, 50, 55, 69, 73, 77, 86, 89, 94, 95 and 97 together.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My Question, No. 50, is quite different from the other Questions the right hon. Gentleman proposes to answer. Would it be possible for him to answer Question No. 50 separately?

Mr. Speaker: It cannot be a matter for the Chair. I have no power in this respect.

Mr. Crossman: The Government are pushing on as fast as possible with their examination of local government finance and the rating system in the light of the Allen Report. When it is concluded there will be no delay in announcing our plans.

Mr. Rhodes: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the findings of the Allen Report indicate that the weakest members of the community are subject to a very high burden of rates—the elderly, those with relatively low fixed incomes and those men with relatively large families? Will he give sympathetic consideration to the proposals of Newcastle City Council that those boroughs with large-scale, costly redevelopment schemes in areas of high unemployment should receive special help? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this would relieve the crippling rates burden in Newcastle?

Mr. Crossman: The second part of my hon. Friend"s supplementary question is probably a matter of grant or subsidy rather than of local government finance. I accept what he says in the first part of the supplementary question. One of the main conclusions of the Allen Committee was that elderly people particularly who do not have their rates paid by the National Assistance—and it is estimated that half a million of those who qualify for this assistance do not apply for it—are appallingly hard hit even by a rate increase of 8d. in the £ each year. Thus, the case for rating reform is strongly substantiated.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is it the right hon. Gentleman"s view that we should transfer at least part of the education burden from the rates? If so, when will this be done? Is he aware that this is causing great hardship to many grandmas and grandpas who are having to pay for the education of children of wealthy people living in urban areas?

Mr. Crossman: Part of our election manifesto was the transfer of the cost of teachers" salaries—or a large proportion of it—from the rates to taxation. But, as I have pointed out outside the House, this is now seen to be far too small an operation to achieve the objective required, which is shifting the balance from rates to taxation if the rates system is not to break down. Thus, a far more drastic reconstruction of the system is required.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the concern felt all over the country about the increases in rates this year, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the timetable which he contemplates will enable action to be taken to prevent further similar increases next year?

Mr. Crossman: That will depend on a great many things outside my Department. It is a question which should be put to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, or, indeed, to the Leader of the Opposition, for it will depend on the progress we make in our legislative programme this year.

Aylsham

Mr. Ennals: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in the current review of the South-East study, he will take particular note of the representations he has received from the Kent County Council concerning the need to expand Aylsham.

Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend is giving consideration to all the proposals which the county council made in their comments on the South-East Study.

Mr. Ennals: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Is he aware that when Aylsham was planned by Professor Abercrombie, in 1925, it was intended to be a town of between 30,000 and 40,000, but that its growth was stopped in its infancy? Is he also aware that by its location, its transport facilities and in other ways it is eminently suited as a new centre for industry and population in south-east Kent, and will he take seriously the representations made to him on a number of occasions by the Kent County Council?

Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir. I well understand the anxiety which is felt about

the difficulties of this area, but I cannot say anything at this stage which would anticipate the outcome of the South-East Study.

Mr. Boston: Will my hon. Friend also confirm that he and his right hon. Friend are paying particular attention to the representations by Kent County Council and others about the Isle of Sheppey? In view of the scope for development on the Isle of Sheppey?, will he bear in mind that we on the island feel that we have a considerable part to play in the economy of what we refer to as the mainland?

Mr. Mellish: That is a fair point and the answer is, "Yes, Sir".

Bristol and Bath (Green Belt)

Mr. Dean: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now announce his decision on the Somerset part of the Bristol and Bath Green Belt.

Mr. Crossman: I have sent the hon. Member a copy of the letter addressed to the county council on 12th March notifying them of my proposed modifications to the green belt.

Mr. Dean: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for sending me a copy of the modifications. Will he regard this green belt as of absolutely vital importance and do his utmost to see that the details are settled, in the light of the necessary consultations, as rapidly as possible?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I certainly will. It is possible that we may have another inquiry, but I hope that it will not take long and I agree that this is something which we want to get settled firmly.

Yacht Marinas

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what is his policy on an increase in the number of yacht marinas.

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has no objection to marinas in the right places.

Mr. Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that dinghy sailing and boating are probably the fastest growing


popular sports in the country and that 1,700 clubs and about 500,000 people are involved? As there is a shortage of moorings, will he see that his Department takes an encouraging attitude towards these proposals?

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend is very anxious to do so, but in some cases the planning conditions do not make this a desirable development.

Surplus Railway Land (Use)

Mr. Bagier: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in considering planning applications concerning the disposal of railway-owned land, he will encourage local authorities to develop land adjacent to railway stations as municipal bus stations or car parks.

Mr. Mellish: In deciding a planning application the local planning authority or the Minister on appeal can only consider the development proposed. But my right hon. Friend has just sent to every planning authority a bulletin on car parking which includes advice about integrating parking and public transport facilities.

Mr. Bagier: Is my hon. Friend aware that his decision will be welcomed by those who are interested in integrated transport for the future? His indication that railway land in close proximity to existing railway stations ought to be used for this purpose will also be welcomed.

Gypsies

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made by his Department in the discussions with Essex County Council for the provision of lawful places for gypsies and other travellers to park, particularly during those months when farm work is not available, so that there is no need for them to seek sanctuary in Kent to escape difficulties in Essex.

Mr. Crossman: I understand that the council has approved in principle the provision of sites for itinerants and are at present discussing two sites with the district councils concerned.

Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Essex has a very bad record

in this connection and that at the last census had twice as many caravan families as Kent? Does he not think that the basic principles involved here—Christianity, Socialism and democracy—are such that we might hold our own freedom march in the County of Essex?

Mr. Crossman: I do not want to cause trouble between Essex and Kent. I gather that between 1962 and the last census the gypsy population of Essex increased from 208 to 234 caravans.

Mr. Dodds: Twice as many as Kent.

Mr. Crossman: It is also true that, unlike Kent, Essex provides no sites for them and that not even planning permission has been obtained. This is a serious situation, because if it is known that one single county is providing sites and others are not, there is a tendency for the bees to cluster round the honey, and this has happened to poor Kent. I agree that those who have been virtuous have not been rewarded for their premature virtue.

Mr. Deedes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the point he has just made is very serious in the County of Kent and will become progressively more serious in Essex? Is there any way in which he can induce other counties to take these responsibilities more seriously and so avoid the undoubted penalties which are falling on counties which have produced the right answers first?

Mr. Crossman: This is a minor but serious problem and I have just arranged for a national census of gypsies and itinerants, which actually took place yesterday, thanks to the help of the police throughout the country. When I have that information in hand, which will be in a few weeks, we shall be able to assess the allocation of the problem; then we can make up our minds whether we need to do more than try to advise the counties on doing their jobs.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will give the results of the census recently carried out by the Kent County Council in an effort to ascertain the number of gypsies and other travellers without lawful parking places during the winter months.

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has now received the results of the census in Kent of gypsies and other travellers; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Crossman: The survey carried out by Kent County Council showed within the county 264 caravans apparently needing sites on 1st January this year.
I am waiting for the results of the national census which was carried out yesterday before deciding on my next step.

Mr. Dodds: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said. Does he appreciate that for the last 15 years I have heard Minister after Minister make optimistic statements and yet in Kent there are hundreds of men, women and children without water and without sanitation and without the most elementary fundamentals of civilisation? Is it not a scandal that we in this great country can do nothing better than we have done by just making promises over the years?

Mr. Crossman: I have not made any promises. I have undertaken a national census on the basis of which to decide how we can treat this minor problem to make sure that each area takes its responsibility. That is the position. I hope that we can learn a lot, not only from the Dutch example, but also from Southern Ireland where they have tackled this problem very sensibly.

Mr. Murray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Strood Rural District Council has borne this problem for many, many years? This is a national problem. Is he further aware that unless national action is taken my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) and myself will make this a long-playing record until he does?

Mr. Crossman: I can quite appreciate hon. Members who represent these areas feeling that this is a grievance. On the other hand, we do not want to burden ourselves with unnecessary legislation unless it is absolutely necessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We have plenty of necessary legislation to push through the House. I want to see what we can do by persuading counties rather than by new legislation imposing burdens on them.

Tees-side (Local Government Boundaries)

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to make a decision on the Local Government Boundary Commission"s recommendations for Tees-side; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Crossman: I will announce my conclusions as soon as I can.

Mr. Kitson: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will announce these conclusions before the inquiry starts into Scarborough and Haltemprice, as it is extremely difficult to make an argument until we know what his decisions about Tees-side are?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think we need necessarily postpone decisions about Tees-side until those conclusions are reached. I think we can regard these separately.

Mr. Kitson: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has got it the wrong way round. We want these conclusions before the inquiry at Scarborough, Haltemprice or Harrogate.

Mr. Crossman: I think that I got it the right way round. I said that I did not think that we had to postpone this until after the conclusions had been reached. This is what I think, anyway.

Royal Ordnance Factory Site, Swynnerton

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proposals he has to make on the use of the Royal Ordnance Factory site at Swynnerton in Staffordshire.

Mr. Crossman: Proposals for various alternative uses of this site have been put to me by the Staffordshire County Council. I have told it I will consider these further when I have studied the report of the West Midlands regional study. This is due later this year.

Mr. Fraser: Would the right hon. Gentleman be so good as to tell the House when he expects the regional Midlands study to be available in view of the many regional Midlands studies made previously? There is a long delay in these matters.

Mr. Crossman: There is no delay. It will be ready this summer.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Building Standards

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to encourage and assist local authorities to protect house purchasers from unscrupulous or incompetent builders.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what measures he has taken to stamp out jerrybuilding.

Mr. Wallace: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to ensure good housing standards in private development projects.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he is taking to encourage local authorities to raise standards of house building.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he is taking through local authorities to protect home buyers against builders of poor quality houses.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the volume of evidence concerning jerry-built houses, he will now take steps to deal with the problem.

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to take to ensure that people buying their own houses get homes of a building standard equal to that established for local authority houses built for letting.

Mr. Park: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to encourage local authorities to protect house purchasers against builders of low-quality houses.

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will take steps to prevent the erection of jerry-built houses.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the growing concern about the low quality of house building; what steps he will take to

improve standards; and if he will now make a statement.

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will set up an independent inquiry into the standards of house building to give purchasers protection against jerry-building.

Mr. Crossman: I am determined to achieve an improvement in housing standdards as well as better protection for purchasers. To this end, I am consulting representative bodies of the house building industry, local authorities, building societies, professional institutions and other interested organisations. I am not yet ready to make any statement.

Mrs. Short: My right hon. Friend"s reply will be received with great satisfaction on both sides of the House and outside, because this is one of the major problems we face in housing problems today. Will he consider the possibility of enabling the local authorities to carry out inspection of building? The machinery exists, although they have not enough building inspectors at present. Will my right hon. Friend consider a levy on the building industry to finance this local authority service?

Mr. Crossman: It is jumping the gun a bit to assume a certain solution there. We are consulting all the interested bodies precisely to find out their views. It is not my impression that by any means all local authorities are anxious to take on this enormous extra responsibility, without the necessary staff. They have quite enough trouble managing and seeing that their own houses which they build are up to an adequate standard. In my view, we may well find that self-government and self-discipline in the industry is better than control from outside.

Mr. Gilmour: Has the Minister yet been able to study the proposals of the Consumers Association on jerry-building, and does he agree with them?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I have made a close study of those proposals. I asked representatives of the Association to come to see me and I had a long talk with them. I think that the Association did a useful job, though many of the statements which it made in its report were, perhaps, a little unfair because they had been completely out-dated by the new


standards laid down before it was published. This was admitted to me in conversation. However, the stimulus was very good. What is important is to realise that, if we are to have self-discipline, we must have an institution representing the whole of the building industry, architects, consumers and the rest—an adequate overall body. We are a long way from that, and my main anxiety is to encourage existing institutions to move as fast as they can to a point where we regard them as representative.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a dramatic fall in the standard by size particularly of local authority housing over the past 13 years, while right hon. and hon. Members opposite were in power, and will he take every action he can to encourage local authorities to improve the standard?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, but I think that we were mostly concerned in this Question not with the standard of local authority building but with that of private enterprise building. I agree with my hon. Friend that in both cases there is a danger of rabbit hutches being constructed because of the pressure to maximise quantity as against quality, and in a Circular I am now issuing to local authorities I emphasise the need for quality in their building. Quality in private enterprise building is precisely what I want this self-disciplining institution to achieve. It is important to recognise that we were building bigger and, in certain ways, better houses 12, 14 or 15 years ago than the ones being built today. The Parker Morris standards are the standards which we are urging as the ones needed today.

Mr. Hogg: Has the Minister considered the view which is held by some people that the terms implied in the contract for sale of a new house are inadequate for the protection of the purchaser, and will he consult his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and, perhaps, the new Law Commission, to see whether that view can be enacted?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. There is a great deal in this, and we are consulting the Building Societies Association also along similar lines.

Local Authorities (Mortgages)

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have ceased to give 100 percent. mortgages or have increased the rate of interest in respect of mortgages since Her Majesty"s Government took office.

Mr. Chataway: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have increased the rates of interest charged on mortgages since Her Majesty"s Government took office.

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities are continuing to grant 100 percent. mortgages; and what is the current rate of interest being charged.

Mr. Crossman: The 1,200 local authorities which operate lending schemes send me quarterly returns of advances made, showing 100 percent. advances separately, but these returns do not show how many have suspended lending entirely or have given up making 100 percent. advances. Press reports and other sources indicate that 36 authorities have suspended lending schemes entirely, of which three are known to have resumed lending. No returns are made of the interest rates charged.

Mr. Gilmour: Does not the fact that all the Labour Party"s promises on this matter have been broken cause the right hon. Gentleman some embarrassment? Is it not rather a curious method of carrying out what he called his pledges in due priorities to act entirely contrary to those pledges?

Mr. Crossman: I cannot find anything contrary to their pledges in what the Government did during an acute economic crisis.

Sir C. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to influence the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get Bank Rate down so that housing charges can be reduced and greater advantage taken by people who want houses to rent or buy?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman is a profound reader of my mind. This is something I seek to do day by day.

Houses (Compulsory Purchase)

Mr. David Price: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Housing Act, 1957, in order that market value may become the basis of assessment for the payment of compensation for all properties compulsorily acquired.

Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend is keeping these compensation provisions under review, but he does not think the public should generally pay market value for houses which are not fit to be lived in. Market value is paid for all other property.

Mr. Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my Borough of Eastleigh and a number of others, clearance orders are being placed on owner-occupied houses on which recently the local authorities have granted mortgages and that on 13th December this year the provisions of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act, 1957, will come to an end? Will the Government consider renewing those powers, which would make a great deal of difference to the people concerned and make it easier for local authorities to get ahead with the problem of twilight houses?

Mr. MacColl: As far as I know, there is not likely to be any official Bill to extend the powers of that Act. My right hon. Friend has not had any formal representations in the case of Eastleigh about the clearance area there. If he does, he will have the duty of deciding whether the houses are fit or not. It would, therefore, not be right for me to comment on the rather paradoxical situation that has arisen in Eastleigh.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman said that there was no official Bill. Does this mean that these provisions are definitely coming to an end in December this year?

Mr. MacColl: There is a Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) which deals with the situation.

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware that some owners who purchased their houses before the

publication of local redevelopment schemes are being compelled, under compulsory purchase order, to accept a lower sum than the original purchase price, and that this constitutes an injustice to people who have invested their life savings in their house; and whether he will take action to remedy this situation.

Mr. Mellish: So far as my right hon. Friend is aware this is a problem only where the houses are found to be unfit for occupation. It would be wrong for the public to have to pay for buildings in this condition.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very often houses regarded by authorities as being unfit for human habitation are none the less considered by their present occupants to be perfectly fit and that an authority's decision may constitute a hardship to certain individuals? As the Minister is evidently considering a vast extension of compulsory purchase powers, will be bear in mind that this possible hardship is latent? Will he not allow his natural prejudice against owner-occupiers to condone an extension of this hardship?

Mr. Mellish: If any one authority considers that it has in any way misled any particular owner-occupier and that hardship is involved, if that local authority will contact my right hon. Friend, we shall be prepared to consider any individual case on its merits.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing practice among property owners of selling off bad property in areas which are known to be about to be development areas in the hope of cashing in, and that people buy these houses in the hope of getting to the top of the housing list by having a form of key money taken from them?

Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir.

Mr. David Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that with the best will in the world local authorities have considerable legal disabilities about paying any sort of compensation when a house is purchased under a clearance order, that they cannot always do the just thing and that an amendment to the law is needed?

Mr. Mellish: I was asked about compensation and I say again that we are


concerned only with paying site value for a house which is found to be unfit for human occupation. It may be that the owner-occupier bought the house just before it was compulsorily acquired and there may be individual hardship which we would be prepared to consider, but we believe in the principle of paying only site value and no more for such property.

Underground Supply Services

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will issue a circular to all local authorities and housing development corporations emphasising the desirability that henceforth all new housing development should have their underground supply services, such as gas, electricity, water, telephone, radio, heat, etc., carried through underground concrete ducts filled with easily-removed covers, thus eliminating the digging and filling-in of the roadway when breakdowns occur.

Mr. Mellish: No, Sir. There are technical difficulties in laying services in a common duct, and these can be overcome only at considerable expense. My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that any advantages to be obtained would be worth the extra cost.

Mr. Atkinson: I appreciate that Ministers do not habitually accept technological change without a fight, but would my hon. Friend agree that there is sufficient reason for carrying out an extensive survey into this problem in order to inject some scientific understanding into our building methods which is so badly needed in the building industry? Would he have another look at this matter so as not to disappoint his grandchildren who are expecting this technological Government to do a great deal from the point of view of change?

Mr. Mellish: The Ministry of Public Building and Works is studying this among other methods, including a simplification of site works. But the Answer which I gave concerned the immediate question of cost, which is very important.

Owner-occupiers (Mortgage Interest Rates)

Mr. W. Clark: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now give details of Her Majesty"s Government"s proposals for

helping intending owner-occupiers to enjoy lower mortgage interest rates.

Mr. Crossman: I have nothing to add at present to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for
Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and other hon. Members on 2nd February.

Mr. Clark: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is high time that the Labour Party"s pre-election pledges were kept? Is he aware that there are many would-be owner-occupiers who are desperately disappointed with the Government in view of what they said during the election because they have not taken the action necessary to reduce mortgage rates —in fact, the very reverse?

Mr. Crossman: I think that that kind of question is getting otiose even with the electorate. They know perfectly well that it is quite ridiculous to demand that a five-year programme should be carried out in five months. The fact that the hon. Gentleman goes after me delights me, because it means that he is keeping the issue alive so that when we announce our proposals they will give pleasure to those who see them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Minister aware that this is not just a case of failure to carry out an election pledge within five months? It is the fact that mortgage rates are now higher than they were, despite the promise of himself and his right hon. Friends that they should be lower. Can he at least say whether, when at last he moves in this matter, he will apply the lower rates to those who take up mortgages now and therefore not discourage people from home ownership?

Mr. Crossman: I shall say nothing to anticipate the legislation or the pleasure of those who may receive the benefit of it.

Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Marlowe: On a point of order. Before we come to the Prime Minister"s Questions, may I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is it possible for us so to fill up the Order Paper that 3.15 p.m. never comes?

Mr. Speaker: That would appear to be hypothetical and not calculated to ensure progress now.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (MINISTER OF STATE)

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now appoint a Minister of State for Science and Technology in the Commons.

Mr. Prior: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now appoint a Minister of State for Science and Technology in the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.

Mr. Kershaw: Will not the work be extremely heavy? Is the Prime Minister satisfied that his right hon. Friend the Minister will have time to do it in view of his professional commitments outside the House?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is becoming a bore on that question. I thought hon. Members opposite were opposed to the establishment of a Ministry of Technology. If they are consistent in that, I find it a little hard to understand why they want to have more Ministers there.

Mr. Prior: But would not the right hon. Gentleman consider appointing someone like Lord Snow whose views on comprehensive education are so much respected by hon. Members on this side of the House? Would he like to say how he reconciles his own views on the grammar schools and about getting rid of them "over his dead body" and Lord Snow"s views on the comprehensive education policy of the Labour Party?

The Prime Minister: I should have expected hon. Members to do better than think up these laborious supplementary questions three or four weeks after tabling the Question. My noble Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—Some hon. Members opposite would not understand even if I did. My noble Friend is already Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry. If hon. Members would like to see him promoted, I would, of course, consider any representations which they make on that score. The other points do not arise on this Question.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES

Mr. Box: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now give the Secretary of State for Wales at least the same responsibilities for Wales as the Secretary of State for Scotland has for Scotland.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Box: Is the Prime Minister aware that that is a very unsatisfactory Answer? Prior to the last General Election we were promised a Secretary of State who would have wide executive responsibility for health, housing and local government, agriculture and education? When will he stop treating Wales like a second-class nation? As the Minister of Agriculture seems to have gone broody on Questions, will the right hon. Gentleman consider transferring these responsibilities to the Secretary of State for Wales so that the problems of Welsh agriculture can be dealt with adequately at Question Time?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the hon. Gentleman spent the whole of the last election fighting against all our proposals in this field, as well as in the field of leasehold enfranchisement, and indeed he wasted a lot of my time sending me telegrams at various moments expressing his views. As regards our pre-election programme, we said that the Secretary of State for Wales would have a wide responsibility in all these fields, and so he has. We did not say, and I never said, that we would adopt the Scottish solution in relation to Wales.

Mr. Gower: Is it not clear that the electors in many parts of Wales were persuaded to vote for the Labour Party —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—in the expectation that the Secretary of State would have powers analogous to those of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and why did the Labour Party adopt this nationalistic policy, if not perhaps to take some votes from the Welsh Nationalist Party?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman never showed this vigour when he was on this side of the House—at any rate not in that particular direction. I can understand his feeling of disappointment and resentment that in 13 years his own side never did anything for Wales.

Mr. Hooson: Will the Prime Minister say whether he is contemplating extending the executive powers of the Secretary of State for Wales, and is not the Ministry of Health ripe for a change at the moment?

The Prime Minister: I did not quite hear the hon. and learned Gentleman"s question.

Mr. Hooson: Is not the Ministry of Health the right Ministry for the next extension of executive powers to the Secretary of State for Wales?

The Prime Minister: I am not contemplating any extension. We are going to see how this works. It is my impression that it is working very well in these fields where my right hon. Friend has the degree of responsibility which he has been given in the Transfer of Functions Order. We shall watch the working of the Health Service in Wales in this connection. Up to now I have seen no argument for making a further change.

GERMANY (FRONTIERS)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether, on his visit to President de Gaulle, he will publicly associate himself with the latter"s declaration that the West German Government should recognise as final Germany"s existing frontiers with Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries.

The Prime Minister: The policy of Her Majesty"s Government is that the final determination of the frontier between Germany and Poland cannot be formalised until there is a peace settlement. As regards the frontier between Germany and Czechoslovakia, Her Majesty"s Government take the view that no consideration should be given to any changes effected in 1938.

Mr. Zilliacus: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he agrees that in the last 20 years the provisional has become permanent, that Western Poland is now settled by over 6 million Poles and that important industries have been founded there? These territories are an integral part of Poland, and in the circumstances does not it render a disservice to peace to encourage illusions in Western

Germany that they can still restore their 1937 frontier?

The Prime Minister: Of course a lot has happened in the last 20 years, particularly in the establishment or reestablishment of dwellings, factories, and so on, but there is no peace settlement, and that question cannot be settled until there is.

Sir C. Osborne: While agreeing with much that has been put to the Prime Minister by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus), may I ask the Prime Minister to be careful, when he visits President de Gaulle, that the President does not use him to drive a wedge between this country and America and between both our countries and the Soviet Union over this problem?

The Prime Minister: I would always bear the hon. Gentleman"s warnings very carefully in mind.

PRIME MINISTER (ABSENCE ABROAD)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made for the carrying out of his Parliamentary duties during his absence.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) on 18th February.

Mr. Lewis: That did not tell us very much. Does not the Prime Minister agree that he adds up to a large Administration, and should not he think in terms of appointing a deputy Prime Minister? Is he aware that according to the newspapers today there is a space explorer called Brown who at this minute is in the "Go" position? In any event, in view of the growing influence in his party of the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) and Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), will he consult them if he thinks of appointing a deputy?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman"s question is very laboured, but his main Question referred to my absences. I do not intend to be absent more than I can help during the periods when I am due to answer Questions here, and


when I do go abroad, in the main I try to avoid absenting myself when I should be here to answer Questions, so I do not think that this very involved and laboured Question really takes us much further.

Mr. Ioan L. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend advise on the appointment of a deputy Leader of the Opposition to avoid all the manoeuvrings on the opposite side of the House?

MINISTER OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SPEECH)

Mr. Woodnutt: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Minister of Housing and Local Government given on 26th February at a civic dinner in Huyton on local government finance represents the policies of Her Majesty"s Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and as one of his fellow-guests I can confirm that my right hon. Friend responded to the opportunities presented by the Huyton-with-Roby Urban District Council with a speech of appropriate coruscation.

Mr. Woodnutt: Does not the Prime Minister agree that his right hon. Friend was hoodwinking the British public when he said that it was only after examining the books that Her Majesty"s Government realised that local government expenditure would double in the next 10 years? Does he agree that the easiest way of relieving the burden on the rates, if he really wishes to do so, is to increase the amount of the general grant so that it covers a greater proportion of the expenditure?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that even if my right hon. Friend were ever, which is inconceivable, to set out with a plan to hoodwink the British people, he would not start in Huyton, because, as has been shown, there was a 19,000 majority after the forecast of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) that I would be defeated. The constituency of Huyton is used to evaluating the truth.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is the Prime Minister aware that no authentic script

of this speech exists? The Library of the House of Commons cannot supply one, and all that one can get is an extract which is available at Transport House. It is not available to Members of this House on request. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving the Paymaster-General something to do by spreading about the correct version of this speech?

The Prime Minister: I shall be delighted to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of this, and, indeed, if there is none in the Library of the House, I shall see that one is placed there, because I think that its educational and therapeutic value will be tremendous.

Mr. Rhodes: Is it within my right hon. Friend"s recollection that in December, 1963, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in the last Administration said that there was no satisfactory alternative system of financing local government? Was not that an apathetic answer?

The Prime Minister: I thought that it was a rather vigorous answer. The late Government failed to do anything on this question, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained that we have a very urgent review of local government finance going on at the present time. I do not think that anyone has ever said that it would be easy to find a new method of local government taxation, but this review is going on urgently, and when the results are complete we shall tell the House what those results are.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rose.

Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is it in order to ask whether Question No. 7 has been deferred?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can observe that I did not call it. That is all.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT DE GAULLE (TALKS)

Mr. Rose: asked the Prime Minister whether, during his visit to President de Gaulle, he will discuss with him the joint rôle that can be played by Great Britain and France in bringing about disengagement in Central Europe

The Prime Minister: I cannot speculate in advance about the subjects which will be discussed during my talks with President de Gaulle next month.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread feeling in Europe that the policies of the French Government are less inimical to a European détente than our own? Will he make it quite clear that disengagement in Central Europe is still a major feature of Labour Party policy?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that if there is that impression in Europe about French policies compared with our own, it is wrong, because on a number of occasions we have laid down the conditions which we think must be fulfilled if there is to be the détente that we all want to see.

Sir Roll Dudley Williams: Will the Prime Minister explain how it is that the disengagement policy—which was the policy of the party opposite—has now been dropped and no longer appears to be popular with him?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member, not for the first time in his life, is wrong. I have explained in this House—if my memory is correct it was on 9th February—our support for a disengagment policy with the conditions laid down then and with the conditions that were laid down before the General Election.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? On 9th March I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would give me a list of persons from private industry and other spheres who had been appointed by the Government and by various Departments of State, indicating their salary, and so on. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied:
No. This information is made available in other publications."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 39.]
I searched diligently through other publications and found no information, so I put down another Question to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, asking what these publications were. He told

me that the names of the more senior officers are published every two months by Her Majesty"s Stationery Office and that the next edition will be available in April, and that the names of the other advisers and their salaries appear annually in the Imperial Calendar, the next edition of which will appear in April, and will include the names of those appointed to work in Government Departments up to November, 1964.
It appears from the Chancellor"s Answer yesterday that his first Answer was wrong in two respects. In the first place, the names were not available, and in the second place only some of the names were available in the publication that he mentioned. What protection have back benchers against a Minister who gives either misleading replies—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite idle to raise matters which are not points of order. It merely consumes other people"s time. All these are complaints about answers given to the hon. Member. I cannot undertake to amend Minister"s answers even if I knew what they should be.

Mr. Kershaw: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: It was not a point of order. If the hon. Member has a point of order I will certainly listen.

Mr. Kershaw: Is it really in order to give incorrect replies and not—

Mr. Speaker: Yes. So far as the rules of order are concerned, a reply can be as bad and as inaccurate as possible.

VIETNAM

Mr. Paget: (by Private Notice)asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the efforts of Her Majesty"s Government to produce a peaceful solution in Vietnam in the light of the declared intention of the American Government to extend the war without limit, and their use of gas.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is discussing this question against the background of the whole Vietnam situation with the American Secretary of State, and is also


today meeting the President. I would prefer to await the outcome of these meetings before saying anything further.

Mr. Paget: In view of certain activities, will not my right hon. Friend say that a preference for high explosive as against anaesthesia seems a somewhat odd expression of anti-Americanism? As it seems quite plain that a removal of American troops from this area would only adjourn the conflict to the next objective, will not my right hon. Friend say that our allies have our full support in seeking to convince North Vietnam and the Vietcong that aggression does not pay and that negotiations should be begun?

The Prime Minister: I am not going to follow my hon. and learned Friend into the argument about explosives, gas, napalm, or any of those questions. I have on many occasions stated our position about the fighting in Vietnam. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see a lasting, effective and peaceful settlement of this situation. That is why my right hon. Friend is in Washington.

Mr. Hooson: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread apprehension in this country about the use of gas by our allies and that this is by no means confined to one section of the community or one political view? Is the Foreign Secretary making representations as to the danger of the extension of the use of gas? If it is used by one side and then the other, this thing can spiral up to a world conflict in no time.

The Prime Minister: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the use of gas or napalm, but they are equally concerned about the whole question of fighting in this area. Any views we may have of this matter are better expressed through my right hon. Friend to the American Government rather than by statements made in this House.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is the Prime Minister aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I very much agree with what he has said about the place to talk about this? The Foreign Secretary should talk to the Secretary of State and the President in the United States. The word "gas" arouses great emotions and great fears after our experience in the First

World War, but does not the Prime Minister"s information so far confirm that this is not a noxious gas, in the sense of the terms of The Hague Convention, but rather one of the varieties of tear gas which is used in civil disturbances?

The Prime Minister: So far as I have received any information on this matter it confirms what the right hon. Gentleman has said, as not being in contravention of the Geneva Convention of 1925 or any other convention. But I am sure that the whole House will agree that any bringing in of new weapons, or any extension of the war in any way, adds to the changes which I have mentioned at previous Question times.
This fighting has changed entirely in kind as well as degree, and, therefore, carries with it all the time greater dangers. That is why it is important, particularly after certain disappointments last week, for an initiative to be taken to try to get a lasting and robust peace, to guarantee freedom in that part of the world.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the difficulties that have so far presented themselves in promoting a solution to the Vietnam problem, is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome the initiative so far taken by Her Majesty"s Government? But did the United States Government inform Her Majesty"s Government or the Foreign Secretary—or my right hon. Friend himself—that it was their intention to use napalm bombs and gas in this conflict?

The Prime Minister: On the question of negotiations and initiative, as my right hon. Friend will know, we proposed to the Soviet Foreign Minister last week a joint initiative by the two co-chairmen. This was rejected. I would have thought that the position now is that if the two-co-chairman cannot go ahead there is a duty on us to take the initiative with a view to effecting a peaceful and lasting solution to the whole Vietnam problem. My right hon. Friend is discussing in Washington the most fruitful basis on which this initiative can be taken.
The answer to the second part of my right hon. Friend"s supplementary question is "No".

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the United States has not ratified the Geneva Protocol?


Having asked that, may I go on to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that everyone will agree with what he said about the seriousness of the situation? Finally, is he aware that some hon. Members on this side of the House, having noted that the grave question of the use of gas has been taken up by hon. Members on the benches opposite, will be glad of their support in any protests we may make against the use of lethal gas by Egyptian forces in the Yemen?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is right in saying that the United States has not ratified that Convention. I note his second point, and hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will condemn the use of lethal gas as banned by the Geneva Convention. There surely cannot be any doubt about that.

Mr. Mendelson: With reference to my right hon. Friend"s remark about the Government"s work in trying to create a basis for negotiations, has it not now become clear, in the light of recent diplomatic discussions in London and elsewhere, that it is a positive hindrance to our efforts that we should be so completely identified with all the military actions and statements made by the United States in recent weeks?
Would it not now be helpful to my right hon. Friend"s efforts, which we all support [Laughter.]—unlike hon. Members opposite—if he would now express the deep feelings of many millions of people in this country in dissociating the British Government from attacks using napalm gas and the recent destruction of a school which cost the lives of 45 children? Would not he now do better to declare firmly that the statement made by General Taylor that there is no limit does not receive the support of Her Majesty"s Government?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that a lot of children have been killed both in North and South Vietnam during this fighting. This is the reason for all of us to do everything in our power to get this matter settled on a satisfactory basis. I do not accept that our ability to help to produce that kind of settlement is affected by what my hon. Friend has said. We always understood, from the time when the co-chairmen were first appointed, that one of them would be in the Eastern camp and one in the Western camp.
I have seen no sign at all that the Soviet co-chairman showed any inhibitions about expressing his support for his allies in this matter, and we have shown no inhibitions, either. I do not believe, nevertheless, and I said this to Mr. Gromyko, that, though there are these difficulties, they should stop us acting on those points on which, I hope, we are agreed, namely, on seeing what are the next steps which will lead to a settlement. So far, we have not had a positive response.
My hon. Friend referred, in the last few words of his question, to a statement, reported in certain newspapers this morning, which is attributed to General Taylor. This is, of course, a matter on which we must seek further elucidation, and we are so doing, because it uses phrases about carrying on the war without limit which, I think, go considerably further than anything which I have told the House, after establishing the facts before I did so.
I think that one must be concerned to find what the facts are. I will not say here and now that this has been said by General Maxwell Taylor. We must investigate these statements and get a proper account. Only 10 days ago The Times carried a scare story on its main page about American attitudes, which turned out to be completely false and which was denied, with reference to The Times" story, the following day in Washington.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate these matters now.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement about the Palace of Westminster.
Her Majesty the Queen has graciously agreed that the control, use and occupation of the Palace of Westminster and its precincts shall be permanently enjoyed by the Houses of Parliament.
Her Majesty"s Government have decided that the control of the accommodation and services in that part of


the Palace and its precincts now occupied by or on behalf of the House of Commons shall be vested in you, Sir, on behalf of this House.
The House will wish to know that the control of the accommodation and services in that part of the precincts now occupied by or on behalf of the House of Lords will be vested in the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords on behalf of that House.
The control of Westminster Hall and the Crypt Chapel will be vested jointly in the Lord Great Chamberlain as representing Her Majesty the Queen and in the two Speakers on behalf of the two Houses. The Lord Great Chamberlain will retain his existing functions on royal occasions and Her Majesty"s Robing Room and the staircase and ante-room adjoining and the Royal Gallery will remain under his control.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works will be responsible for the day-to-day management of Westminster Hall and the Crypt Chapel. He will be responsible to Parliament for the fabric of the Palace and he will be, subject to Parliament, responsible for its upkeep and for any extension and alteration to the Palace and the provision of furnishing, fuel and light. My right hon. Friend will also be responsible to the House for the provision of custodians and guides as may be necessary.
I think, Sir, that you might find it helpful if a Select Committee were appointed to consider how we should exercise the control of the accommodation and services in that part of the Palace and its precincts which is to be vested in you on our behalf.
These arrangements have been discussed with the Opposition parties through the usual channels and I believe that they are likely to commend themselves to the House as a whole. It is proposed that they should come into effect on 26th April.
It seemed to Her Majesty"s Government right that this important change should be set out in a formal document. I will, with permission, circulate this in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I should like to add that the present Lord Great Chamberlain and the other

co-heirs in whom the hereditary Office is at present vested have readily given their humble obedience to Her Majesty"s commands with respect to the future control, use and occupation of the Palace of Westminster.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No doubt the Prime Minister is aware that discussions were begun on this matter in the last Parliament. I feel that the proposals are likely to be acceptable to the House. I should like to say that I certainly support the idea of a Select Committee to advise you, Mr. Speaker, on how the powers vested in you should be exercised.

The Prime Minister: I propose that a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee should be tabled quite soon. All the points which, I am sure, are in the minds of right hon. and hon. Members will be able to be looked after in the advice given to Mr. Speaker.

Sir H. Butcher: In view of the importance of this statement, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would enter into consultations through the usual channels for the provision of time for the discussion of this matter, so that the Select Committee can be fully advised of the wishes of the House?

The Prime Minister: The question of time is, of course, one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I hope that, if the Select Committee is appointed, it will be sufficiently representative to make itself capable of finding the views of all right hon. and hon. Members in the House.

Mr. Dalyell: May I say to my right hon. Friend that those of us who have been agitating for some improvement will greatly welcome this statement? Will the Select Committee have the power to make some agreement between Lords and Commons on the question of pooling certain accommodation between the two Houses?

The Prime Minister: I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend—

Sir R. Thompson: On a point of order. Arising out of the Prime Minister"s statement, are we to understand that you, Mr. Speaker, accept this nomination to become the chairman of yet another industrialised industry?

Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister was answering a question. Let it continue.

The Prime Minister: I was saying that I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) because we all know the interest which he has taken in this matter. Now that this has been achieved, perhaps it will enable him to cut down on his nocturnal perambulations around the Palace of Westminster.
The question of the pooling of accommodation is, of course, a matter for the two Houses, but, as my hon. Friend will realise, the question of the control of accommodation here is now quite unequivocally in the hands of the two Houses, so that if there is any advantage in this it will be possible for the two sides to get together on it.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that I think that all hon. Members of the House will be very grateful to Her Majesty the Queen for this imaginative gesture to modernisation? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to seek to establish the Select Committee with a due sense of urgency, to make sure that we in this House get our proportionate share of the accommodation in the whole of the Palace of Westminster?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the whole House would agree with what my hon. Friend says about the Gracious decision of Her Majesty about the Palace of Westminster. It still remains, of course, a Royal Palace, but as a result of the statement graciously made by Her Majesty, the control of it for Parliamentary purposes is now completely within the hands of the two Houses of Parliament.
We certainly intend to get on with the job of appointing the Select Committee as quickly as possible and of seeing that the control is effectively exercised in our part of the Palace by this House.

Mr. Jennings: Shall we be able to debate this important question on the Motion for the appointment of the Select Committee? Surely the House will be allowed to debate this important departure from tradition?

The Prime Minister: This will be a matter for discussion through the usual

channels. It may well be that the House will find it more useful to wait for the Report of the Select Committee before entering into a full debate.

Following is the information:

CONTROL AND CUSTODY OF THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

Her Majesty having graciously agreed that the control use and occupation of the Palace of Westminster and its precincts shall be permanently enjoyed by the Houses of Parliament saving always Her Majesty"s Robing Room, the staircase and ante-room thereto adjoining and the Royal Gallery which are to remain under the control of the Lord Great Chamberlain whose hereditary functions on royal occasions shall also be maintained, the Government have decided that:—

1. The Minister of Public Building and Works shall continue to be responsible to Parliament for the fabric of the Palace and subject to Parliament for its upkeep and any extension and alteration thereof and the provision of furnishing, fuel and light therefor.

2. Subject to the reservations specifically made herein to the Lord Great Chamberlain as representing the Queen and the Minister of Public Building and Works, the control of the accommodation and services in that part of the Palace and its precincts now occupied by or on behalf of the House of Lords shall be vested in the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords on behalf of that House.

Subject as aforesaid the control of the accommodation and services in that part of the Palace and its precincts now occupied by or on behalf of the House of Commons shall be vested in Mr. Speaker on behalf of that House.
The said respective parts are shown on the plans attached hereto.*

3. The control of Westminster Hall and the Crypt Chapel shall be vested jointly in the Lord Great Chamberlain and in the two Speakers on behalf of the two Houses. Subject thereto the Minister of Public Building and Works shall be responsible for the day-to-day management of Westminster Hall and the Crypt Chapel.

4. The Minister of Public Building and Works shall be responsible, subject to the arrangements made under the next succeeding paragraph, to both Houses for the provision of such custodians and guides as may be necessary for the Palace.

It is recognised that the powers vested as aforesaid in the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker on behalf of the House of Lords and House of Commons respectively may be delegated by each House to such Committee or other authority as it may choose and any such Committee or authority may use such agents for such purposes connected with the exercise of the said powers as it may think fit.

It will be for the Speakers of the two Houses to make arrangements for
the pro-
* Available in the House of Commons Library.


vision of such police as may be necessary for the Palace.

The co-heirs in whom the hereditary Office of Lord Great Chamberlain is at present vested, that is to say, the Marquess of Cholmondeley, the Earl of Ancaster and the descendants of the late Charles Robert Marquess of Lincolnshire, who have inherited his rights of co-heirship, desire to record their humble obedience to Her Majesty"s commands with respect to the future control use and occupat on of the Palace of Westminster.

It is intended that these arrangements shall become effective on 26th
April next.

BILL PRESENTED

RENT

Bill to restore the right to retain possession of certain dwellings; to make further provision with respect of security of tenure, rents and premiums; to restrict evictions without due process of law; and for purposes connected with those matters. presented by Mr. Richard Crossman; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Herbert W. Bowden, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Ross, Mr. James Griffiths, the Attorney General, Mr. Niall MacDermot, Mr. Robert Mellish, and Mr. James MacColl; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bowden.]

Orders of the Day — IMMIGRATION

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: We are about to embark on a subject of some difficulty which raises grave and serious issues and, if I may say so, it was not without some hesitation that I advised my right hon. and hon. Friends to select the topic of immigration as the subject of debate. Certainly, it is a political topic. It is right in the centre of political subjects. It is a great public issue and it is also full of great moral and political controversy. In our belief, the Floor of the House of Commons is the proper place for the discussion of a subject of that character.
I agree very much with what was said in The Times on 22nd March:
… it is both unrealistic and unprofitable to ask that as soon as an area of policy become explosive or requires drastic action it should be promoted to a political Olympus where dwell the beneficent deities, All the Talents of National Coalition, True Patriots, and such demi-gods as Men of the Centre, and Radicals of All Parties.
I believe this to be a right statement, and I should like to quote one further sentence, as I think it sets the tone of what we are to discuss:
To ask for an abatement of politics in this connection is not to ask that argument should cease or party disagreements be submerged; but that policies be advocated and criticised with honest motives, with proper moderation and with a responsible sense of the dreadful consequences that could flow from any serious mishandling or aggravation.
I think that that is a fair statement of the way in which we might approach
these problems.
As one who comes, in a sense, new to this problem—as, indeed, in some sense


perhaps the Home Secretary comes new to them, and none the worse for that—I think that one has a sense of the danger of a slip of the tongue which, taken out of context, could be blown up from isolation and really damage the causes which hon. Members on both sides of the House have at heart. Equally, one is fearful of the other danger, that in an attempt to avoid these slips one so blurs the issues that we never get to the real heart of this great problem. I shall seek to avoid these errors.
We debate this subject on the Motion, "That this House do now adjourn", and that Motion is the most uncontroversial that we could select. We have not the slightest intention of dividing the House. This is more a debate in the nature, as it were, of a Council of State, in which we can exchange views from both sides of the House; and perhaps from the clash or difference of opinion, or even perhaps from the merging of opinions, find something which will advance these causes.
Because we are debating this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, legislation would be out of order. There is some possibility of a Bill dealing with some aspects of these matters. When it comes we shall judge it on its merits. Certainly, we do not commit ourselves to voting against it or dismissing lightly that or any proposal put forward by the Government.
We debate this subject against the background of the law as it is in this country. Let no one underestimate what is the law as it stands at present. The statute and common law of England does not distinguish between black and white. or Jew and Gentile. We are citizens of no mean city. We can be proud of that tolerance and our record for treating men equally before the law. I recall that not so many years ago, in a case involving the criminal law, the matter was stated by Mr. Justice Salmon in imposing a sentence. He said:
Everyone, irrespective of the colour of their skin, is entitled to walk through our streets in peace with his head erect and free from fear. That is a right which these courts will always unfailingly uphold.
Not for the first time have the Judges of England been the safeguards of our freedom. I am sure that it will remain so.
Here there are two fields for discussion. First, the field of control, the policy that we adopt towards it, the machinery that we devise and all that aspect of the matter; and, secondly, the problem of what is sometimes called integration. I am not very happy about that word. I do not believe that many of these immigrant communities have the slightest intention of integrating with one another. I do not think that they really want to integrate with us. This is not unflattering. They have a different approach, a different background, different cultures. These are the two problems, control, and, as I think I should prefer to put it, the problem of absorbing these new cultures within our existing community.
We must approach the matter in a manner which is designed to serve the interests not only of our native community, but all these immigrants who are here, the vast majority of whom—some with their relatives—will remain here. We must look at their interests as well as the interests of everyone else.
May I summarise what I think should be our approach to this matter. I put it fairly and distinctly to the House, so that hon. Members will know where we stand. In our judgement there ought to be a drastic reduction in the inflow of male immigrants, that is, of new workers, that is, through the methods of control and the granting or not granting of vouchers; and, of course, also in tightening up provisions against evasion. That is the first proposition I put forward.
The second proposition, to which I attach equal importance, is that on both sides of the House of Commons we should devote our utmost energy to promoting the absorption of these communities within the fabric of the civilisation of which we in these islands are so proud. We all wish the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Economic Affairs, well in his rôle in that sphere.
I do not regard one of these propositions as positive and the other as negative. I regard them as the two sides of the same medal. If one goes into a house to find the bath water pouring through the ceiling, it may be positive to say that one will try to mop it up and to bring buckets to catch what is coming through the ceiling. It is not a negative step to inquire whether someone has left


the tap turned on. It is a positive and sensible proposal. So we regard the treatment and control on the one side, and the positive steps towards absorption on the other, as both essential to a solution of these problems.
It was this approach which was stated, and has been stated, by a number of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Leader of our party, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), in a speech a few weeks ago in his constituency. My right hon. Friend speaks with a great background knowledge of these problems.
I will now say something about the question of colour.

Mr. Donald Chapman: Would the right hon. Gentleman go further in his remarks about wanting to see a considerable reduction in the number of male workers? I understand that there was a net inflow of about 13,000 last year of new voucher holders, male and female. I do not know how many of those voucher holders were male. Perhaps it was a maximum of, say, 10,000. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he would want to reduce that number to below 10,000 and, if so, by how much?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman will find that in about 20 minutes" time I will be dealing with those matters. I thought it right at the outset to set out clearly what were the two principles on which we approach the matter, and I will be developing these themes later.
As I was saying, I will say something on the question of colour. I think that any hon. Member with experience of public affairs—certainly any Minister charged, as many of them have been, with the responsibility of negotiating throughout the Commonwealth—must approach the question of colour with a great deal of sympathy and tolerance. Few of us who have had the privilege of travelling, as I have sometimes in South-East Asia, and listening to discussions, sometimes about economics, with that blend of wisdom and philosophy one finds in the East—have not come away fascinated by the contribution that can be made by men of different races and colours; and the same is true of any contacts with the West

Indies and the immense kindliness of the peoples of those areas.
The clash comes when there is a clash of cultures in a particular country. It is not necessarily a matter of colour. It happens in East Africa today, in a clash between the black Africans and the Indians. It happens in Malaysia between the Malay proper and the Chinese. Hon. Members who have visited these countries will be as familiar with these problems as I am. It happens in Fiji, in British Guiana and it is to be found in South Africa and in the United States of America. We are not alone in facing problems of this character. Nor are they necessarily problems which are black and white.
The clash does come, or is seen in its most acute form, where one gets a clash over scarce resources. Sometimes it is resources of housing, sometimes of jobs and sometimes, and bitterly so, over the shortage of women. These problems have arisen in many parts of the world. These clashes become remarkably accentuated when the contestants can identify each other because they are different in colour—and this is where the real dangers begin to arise.
I wish to say something about the size of the problem, but, first, I remind the Home Secretary that the fullest public knowledge of these problems would be a great asset. I have asked him for, and he has kindly said that he will try to make available for hon. Members on both sides of the House in the Library each month, the figures of the intake month by month and category by category. A few hon. Members manage to get these figures now, but we should all have them, including the Press and everybody, so that we may see in detail how this problem is developing.
In a valuable series of articles The Times referred to the "dark millions" and dealt with many aspects of this matter. I do not want to exaggerate the problem. It could have been much worse. I think it fair to say that without the passing of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act it might already have reached proportions which would have strained the resources of any Government to contain. I will say no more about that, except that while I do not want to exaggerate the problem I hope that no


hon. Member will seek to minimise it I believe that we are facing something here which, over the years, will present us with a growing problem of the utmost social, parliamentary and political difficulty.
I say that for a number of reasons, in part because the inflow of immigrants is taking place against the background in most areas of an endemic housing shortage. This is bound to accentuate the problem. We must be honest with ourselves and realise that if there is a shortage in the existing community, if we then accept a further inflow, for whatever the reason, we are bound to exacerbate the strains and stresses which confront us.
The problem is also exacerbated because it is not spread evenly. It is concentrated in some areas in a really acute form because that is where the jobs are, where the vouchers have been issued for and where the immigrants go to live. It is also accentuated by the feeling—the dread one might say; I want to use language of restraint and moderation, but I think that "dread" is not too strong a word—that this is not a once-and-for-all problem.
Sometimes people compare it with Holland, Indonesia, and so on. It is true that there was a great inrush of Indonesian refugees from the war there, but I do not think that Holland contemplates a continuous absorption of Indonesian labour into the Dutch economy. Indeed, in our own history we have accepted an inflow of refugees as a once-and-for-all movement, but, if people contemplate that it is something that is going on and on, steadily year by year building up the proportion and the strains and stresses, that is another matter.
In any event, the problem is with us. We cannot get rid of the problem now. There are—whatever the figure may be; say, 800,000—immigrants here. Their numbers will increase by the ordinary natural processes in any event, so it is a problem that is with us whatever we do and we must take proper, wise and sensible steps to try to grapple with it. Faced with this situation, what do we do at this stage? In my judgment wives and infant children must continue to

come in. One must say this and, indeed, mention that some of the most acute social problems arise from the absence of wives. I do not wish to elaborate on that. It is known to anybody who has studied this matter.
This applies to relatives, but we want to look quite closely at what relatives, because I think that there is room for a little closer examination here than has yet been made of the relatives who come in. Certainly, wives and infant children must be allowed to come in. I think, too, that one can control the rate at which they come in. One must see that there is some accommodation to which wives can come and it is not unreasonable, when a husband applies, that he should be asked to see that accommodation of some sort is available.
Indeed, this is something which we do ourselves with our own countrymen sometimes, in Aden and other places. At any rate, I accept in principle, and I hope that the whole House will accept that, on balance, the social and national interests, and the interests of the immigrants themselves, conincide in this matter.
But this does not deal with the underlying problem—great though the question of the relatives of immigrants who are already here is—which is the magnetic pull of a very rich community on many areas of the world which are very poor indeed. That is a very powerful magnetic pull and there is a strong underlying economic element in this problem.
If a nation runs its economy full out—and there has been a tendency for all Governments to run this economy at a fairly strong pressure—certain consequences follow. One is that prices tend to go up, another is that imports tend to be sucked in—and we have been going through certain balance of payments difficulties while a third is that one attracts new labour. This is an inevitable economic consequence of a very strongly running economy which is seeking to expand.
Thus, we are told that some things, like London Transport or the Health Service or parts of the textile industry and some light engineering, cannot go on unless we use this labour. Are we really to say that our condition is such that our


economy can only be run by a continuous inflow of new immigrant labour? I am not discussing those who are here already, but have we to go on bringing in that amount of labour? If the answer is yes, then I am bound to pose to Her Majesty"s Government the question: have we not got some of our priorities a little wrong?
To try to get ourselves out of our short-term difficulties by the soft option of a continuous inflow of new workers from these poor areas of the world and pay the price of what undoubtedly will be a long-term social problem of major magnitude is something which any Government ought to pause a very long time before undertaking.
It may well be true that the number of vouchers has already been cut. C vouchers are virtually out and I believe that that is right, but there are A and B vouchers, and I am not being pedantic or discussing a moratorium but speaking of bringing about a drastic reduction. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary must remember that for every male worker who comes in probably two or three relatives will follow in due course. It will take time and, I would have thought, all the capacity we could make available in this country to absorb the relatives of those who had already been admitted. But to continue to build up that problem by the import of now male-labour is a very grave proposition for any Government and I would beg the Home Secretary and the Government to contemplate well before they commit themselves to it. I am not being pedantic, and I certainly do not intend to bandy figures, for I believe that the worst thing we could do would be to start bidding on figures between both sides of the House on such a matter.
I recognise that in all administrative policies— and I have administered Departments for long enuogh to know—some leeway has to be left for the humanity of the Minister himself; and I do not think that anyone would question the judgment or humanity of the Home Secretary in matters of this kind. I do not want to rule out some scope for manoeuvre here, or perhaps small numbers from one of the smaller Colonies which it might be desired to bring in at some stage. I wanted to state the principle to the Home Secretary and I hope that I have done so in terms which are restrained, but, at the

same time, with sufficient clarity for him to know what I have in mind.

Mr. David Ennals: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what his principle is? Is it that we should almost entirely stop immigration? He has used the phrase "drastic reduction" and, as my hon. Friend has said, 13,000 voucher possessors came in last year. Where is his room for manoeuvre here?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I mean a drastic reduction. It should be a wholly exceptional thing at this stage of this problem to give a voucher to someone coming into this country. I will not quote a figure—in the interests, if I may say so, of the whole approach to this problem; because if we start quoting figures to one another across the Floor we shall get into a difficulty that I would wish to avoid. It is for the Government to state their policy. Because this is a point which is essential to public life in this country, I have gone a very long way in stating in clear and specific terms what I believe our policy ought to be. I have been sufficiently clear and specific for any Government to be able to tell me quite frankly whether they agree in general outline with what I say, or disagree, and why.
There is one other aspect of immigration that I wish to mention, the question of students. Of course, we want to see students coming into this country. That is one of the very greatest links we have with vast numbers throughout the world. They are always welcome here and they take back happy memories of this country; and for all the stories we hear of someone discriminating against someone else, how seldom one hears of the thousands of cases of actual kindness by English, Scots and Welsh people to immigrant communities who are here! We welcome these students, but they must be students and must return home after their period of study.
I am bound to tell the Home Secretary that from all I hear—and, naturally, he has sources of information which are not available to me—I have the very gravest doubts whether all these students are completing their courses of study and returning to the countries from which they have come. I appreciate the pressure upon them and the reason why they stay. It is possible for a man who would be a


graduate of, say, an Indian university, to earn more here in a lowly job than he would earn if he returned to the country from which he came; and if we are not careful there is some danger at least of seeing thousands of students, many with quite high intellectual attainments, doing jobs which are not at the top of the industrial ladder, who have crept in under this particular barrier of control.
Therefore, I would ask the Home Secretary to reflect upon this problem. I realise that to control it he may have drastically to amend some of his administrative machinery. If he feels that that is necessary I hope that he will not believe that we shall make quick points against him on proposals of that character. I see the difficulties in relation to the Commonwealth countries and some other aspects, but if, to get control of the problem, it is necessary drastically to amend the administrative machinery, then that should be done. This is too important for standing back and delaying. The situation could get to the stage at which problems of settlement and a resolution of our difficulties would be far harder than at the present time.
That brings me to the alien problem itself. We always try to treat everybody the same and perhaps to treat the Commonwealth people a bit better than the others. I speak generally. I put this from a personal point of view, coming new to these things. It is said that we should treat everybody as we treat the Irish, but can we, and is it even right to try? We have always failed in this particular operation. There is Irish blood all over the United Kingdom. There is Southern Irish blood in the North and there is Scottish and Welsh blood in Southern Ireland. It is a part of our ethnic whole and I do not think that we can really find a solution if we say that we shall treat everyone the same as the Irish, or treat the Irish as we treat everybody else.
Then there is the European problem. There is Spanish blood, Saxon, Scandinavian, Northern French and everything else in this island; and after listening to the speeches of successive Foreign Secretaries, I suspect that as events proceed the barrier of 20 miles of sea may become less and less. There may be a two-way flow of labour across the Channel— some

coming here, and some English labour going into factories abroad. That may happen, and I do not think that it would be a disaster if it did happen. What would be a disaster would be if we took that as a pattern, and said that we had to treat the whole of the rest of the world in the same way. Whatever our feelings may be, that is not a practical step to take.
I therefore hope that the Home Secretary will approach the matter in a way that is not necessarily inhibited by all the things said before, and all the positions which, I think with good reason, all of us have at one time or another taken up.
Control is vital from both the practical and the psychological point of view. Unless our people know that we have really got a grip on these controls and know our policy with regard to them, it will be very difficult indeed to do some of the other things that need to be done. What are they? In part, precept and example may be more important than legislation. The way we as Members of Parliament approach the subject matters a great deal. How men in public life argue about these things matters a great deal. And the way in which public authorities behave is of supreme importance. Every municipal authority has a very heavy burden upon it to see that it conducts itself in these matters in a way that is exemplary, because if we fail at the top how can we expect others not at that level to conduct themselves responsibly? Precept and example is important, and we will look sympathetically on its merits at any Bill that comes forward.
When we talk of discrimination, the question whether a man is served with a glass of beer in a public house is important, but there are more important things. There is his job, and there is the question of promotion, in the years that lie ahead. Bearing in mind, that, whatever we do, we shall have an immigrant population here of some million people, we must be sure, if we are to be honest with ourselves, that those people are treated as equal citizens. That means quite big decisions by employers and by the trade union movement. In an odd way, it is easier for an immigrant to get promotion up the intellectual ladder. He can become a doctor of philosophy, but to become


a foreman on the shop floor is far harder. I beg the Home Secretary and the Government to keep this in mind, for I am sure that many hon. Members would agree that it is in this direction that we have to use our influence with the trade union movement and the rest.
Then there is the problem of what we can do to promote good relations where these clashes take place. I believe that the National Committee on Commonwealth Immigrants is doing a magnificent job. The job done by men like Philip Mason, or by Miss Peppard in that organisation is, as anyone with knowledge must admit—and I have heard of the work they have done—of inestimable value. But we cannot buy those kinds of persons and those kinds of jobs. I do not pretend that just by pouring in money we can make things different, but we should try to train a few more people to do jobs like that. It will require money, and quite a big effort, to train anyone up to the immensely difficult standard of being able to reconcile a difference between a local community and some other organisation.
Some things we can buy. We can buy interpreters. We can provide the money for the citizens" advice bureaux to see that, for example, advice on buying a house is printed in Punjabi—in many cases it is no good its being printed in English. I do not for a moment underestimate what is being done—a great deal is being done—but these are fields in which we can press on further, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary will seek to do so.
Housing is the great background problem. Whatever we do, we must not discriminate in housing in favour of immigrants. That would be a disaster. It would worsen everyone"s position, including that of the immigrants. What we might be able to do is to put more backing behind some of the areas where the immigration problem is at its worst. That will cost money and it will be very difficult to do, but the problem is pressing on us very hard at present. I hope that the Home Secretary maybe able to tell us something about that.
Then there is education—the language problem. We cannot expect some of these education authorities to be able to

divert a substantial amount of their educational effort to teaching English as a foreign language—yet that is what we have to do. It is in that direction that a fund, centrally financed and directed though locally controlled, could usefully be used.
I have not quarrelled with the Government"s statements so far—indeed, I have not tried to criticise. I have tried to make helpful suggestions. The Home Secretary has said that he will seek to tighten up controls, and I have said that something more than that may be required. The Prime Minister has talked of Government reorganisation; we welcome that. and wish the Under-Secretary well. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of a Bill—we shall look at it sympathetically and on its merits when it comes forward, as I have said. He has spoken of talks round the Commonwealth, and those can be useful—and some of the things that I have indicated may well be worth serious discussion in the Commonwealth. But none of those things goes to the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is not outside. It is in this island. It is in the Government. It is the necessity to take central decisions of policy. I do not underestimate their difficulty or their controversial character, but they must be taken. They must be taken on the control side, and they must be pushed forward on the side of absorption.
If we fail in this, or if we delay it or dodge it, we may build up for ourselves a problem that will be almost insoluble, and we want, in this happy island, to avoid the sort of things that are happening in some other parts of the world. Above all, it is a problem that requires two qualities—courage and compassion. I believe that those are qualities which the House of Commons, in its history, has often brought to bear on questions of this nature.

4.28 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): The Government and, I am sure, the House, are grateful to the Opposition for introducing this subject. If I may say so without offence to the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), I thought that he dealt with this matter very carefully, because he realises, as, I should think, everyone in the House does, that there are delicate and sensitive points here


that must be dealt with very carefully indeed. I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, too, when he said that all possible knowledge on immigration must be made available at all times by the Government—as to figures, health figures and housing. Any information of that kind should be made available to the House. I am sure that that is right.
In dealing with this problem, we should recognise that it is not only a question of something that has happened very recently, but that, over the years since the end of the war, there has been a steady flow of immigrants into this country—greatly increased in the early sixties, and subsequently. In doing this, we must consider the numbers of Commonwealth citizens, first, from what are called the "old", and, secondly, from what are called the "new" Commonwealth countries, some of whom come here for short stays, but many of whom now—and this is the problem—come here to settle and to work.
Until 1st July, 1962, as a result of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, everyone was quite free and not subject to control. Whilst we are speaking today mainly of Commonwealth citizens, we should perhaps also bear in mind that there are many aliens, too, who come here, again many of them permanently to settle. We should perhaps also bear in mind that we are talking not only of Acts of Parliament, of regulations, of figures, but of human beings and human lives, of living standards, and very often of hopes in the minds of people in far distant countries who, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, look towards this country as it were as a land flowing with milk and honey.
Control over Commonwealth immigration is now exercised under the Act which took effect from 1st July, 1962, and which has since been extended by the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts of 1963 and 1964. The extent of the powers given to the Government of the day in these Acts, or perhaps I should say their limitations, are not always recognised. The House will, I hope, excuse me if I spell them out, but I will endeavour to do this briefly.
The Act gives an immigration officer power to refuse a Commonwealth citi-

zen admission to the United Kingdom, or to admit him unconditionally or subject to a condition which restricts the period of his stay and, where the latter condition has been imposed, an additional condition restricting his freedom to employment—in view of the voucher system. Immigration officers have been exercising this power in accordance with the instructions given by Parliament in 1962, which were set out at the time in a White Paper. They included—this is worth remembering—a direction not to use too freely the powers to impose conditions on admission of immigrants.
The immigrants who come here are counted as they enter and leave the United Kingdom by the immigration officers who operate the control, and most of the statistics we have are collected in this way and have been published in reply to Parliamentary Questions, in White Papers, and so on. Some of these figures have been brought up to date. For example, the Written Answer published yesterday to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) gave the absolutely up-to-date figures as far as we are able to find them. I hope, during this speech, not to give the House too many statistics.
The immigration officer"s power to refuse admission to a Commonwealth citizen appears to be somewhat sweeping at first sight, but it is qualified in various ways. For instance, a person who has been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and is returning to the United Kingdom within two years may not be refused admission. He has a right to come in. It is interesting here to note that, in 1964, 81,307 Commonwealth citizens were readmitted as returning residents, making a total of over 188,000 since the control came into force on 1st July, 1962, the point being that the immigration officer cannot refuse admission to anyone who has been absent from this country for a period of less than two years and is seeking readmission.
Again, the immigration officer may not refuse admission to the wife or the child under 16 years of age of a Commonwealth citizen who accompanies him or comes to join him in the United Kingdom. Substantial numbers have been admitted as dependants as a result. Most of those admitted as dependants, probably over 80,000, were people with a legal right of admission under the 1962


Act. We do not know how many people overseas already may be waiting and have a right to come into this country as members of a household as a result of the head of the household being already here and working.
I mention this specifically, as the right hon. Gentleman did, because anyone attempting to restrict the flow of Commonwealth immigrants to a particular level must take account of this large number of people—maybe a very large number of people—who, under the law as it stands, have an absolute right to come to this country whenever they wish. I would personally doubt whether any Government would refuse a request from a wife to join her husband who was already here.

Sir Cyril Osborne: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that a very large number of people are entitled to come here?

Mr. Bowden: I have been trying to ascertain this figure. It is considered to be quite a large figure. It could be as high as half a million. It is impossible to give an absolutely accurate figure. They may not all wish to come in, but assuming that they all did it could be a very large figure.
As to the other categories, the immigration officer has no power to refuse admission to a person who comes here for the purpose of taking employment, providing that he has a current voucher issued by the Ministry of Labour—that is, the A, B and C vouchers; or to a student whose studies are to occupy the whole or a substantial part of his time; or to a person who can support himself and his dependants without taking work. The last of these categories undoubtedly includes a few people of independent means who come here for settlement, but certainly for the most part it consists of tourists and visitors claiming to come here for a limited period, and many of them undoubtedly stay.
As for students, they are freely admitted. In 1963, 18,484 Commonwealth citizens were admitted as students. In 1964, the figure rose to 20,117. The total number of students admitted since the Act came into force is 53,600. We suspect that many immigrants enrol at colleges and other educational establishments and come here as students who in

fact never put in an appearance at any such establishment.
The third category consists of those who come here for employment. They are expected to obtain, before they come, vouchers issued under a scheme administered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour at a rate determined by the Government. Applications for vouchers are dealt with in three separate classes—A, B and C; categories A and B taking precedence over category C. Category A is for Commonwealth citizens with specific jobs for whom an employer might make application for an A voucher.
The Ministry of Labour makes a very careful examination of all these applications to ensure that the job offered is genuinely available and that the terms and conditions of employment are suitable. It has been necessary to reject many applications and in recent months the number of acceptable applications has been greater than the number of vouchers available for issue. So an employer has had to wait—some employers have had to wait for several weeks—after the application has been accepted before a voucher can be issued to the Commonwealth citizen he wishes to employ.
Category B is a rather special category and is for applicants who possess certain skills and qualifications—teachers who are eligible as qualified teachers in this country, nurses, doctors, certain graduates and persons with professional qualifications, building craftsmen, women shorthand typists, and so on. Here again, there have been some delay because the demand for vouchers has exceeded the rate of issue.
Category C was originally for applicants with none of the special skills or qualifications and without any particular job to go to—people who were simply coming here for work in no particular direction. Applications in Category C up to 26th February last totalled 385,028, a third of a million, and 42,367 vouchers were issued. But no C vouchers whatever have been issued in recent months because successful applications in the priority categories A and B have exceeded the total number of vouchers made available for issue. Therefore, taking all these three categories of applicants together, 90,915 vouchers were issued but not all


were used. In recent months, about 75 percent. of those who applied for vouchers have used them and claimed admission to this country.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: What is the currency of the voucher? How long can it remain unused before it lapses?

Mr. Bowden: Six months.
Since the control began, 50,941 voucher holders have been admitted, of whom 30,125 came in 1963 and 14,705 in 1964. The House will be interested to know that in January of this year there were 990.
This then was the statute and the scheme of control which we inherited on taking office. We at once had the powers renewed for a year and at once embarked on a review of the situation. We found that the net balance of Commonwealth immigration from the three "old" Commonwealth countries was, in round figures, 9,000 in 1963 and 13,500 in 1964. From all other Commonwealth territories the net balance of immigration, again in round figures, was 57,000 in 1963 and 62,000 in 1964.
These figures cannot be taken as an absolutely accurate measure of the rate at which Commonwealth citizens settled in this country, especially with the old Commonwealth countries, the figures for which are small and are known to include a substantial number of people who are here on extended visits, such as people who come from the old Commonwealth and are known as "working holidaymakers" and whose stay is short. But these figures are the best indication that we have and there is so wide a difference between these figures and the number of those known to have been admitted with vouchers that we have been driven to the conclusion that too many Commonwealth citizens accepted as students and visitors have been allowed to settle here.

Sir Frederic Bennett: How many of the students whom the right hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier have gone back? Clearly, they come here for a substantial period—one, two, three, or four years. Is there any record to help us?

Mr. Bowden: No. That is the type of figure which it is difficult to obtain. The

fact is that many have enrolled here with educational establishments, but have never turned up and have gone into the labour market somewhere. There is no record of what has happened to them. Some may have gone back, others not.
There is nothing in the law under the 1962 Act to prevent students and others, once having passed the immigration officers, from settling down here and taking work. In addition, we know that many Commonwealth citizens have tried —an unknown number successfully—to pass themselves off as belonging to one of the three categories which I have already mentioned and these have also settled down here.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is in the process of urgently reviewing the voucher problem. We are of the opinion that we must consider some priority of occupations. This was the point made by the right hon. Member for Monmouth. It is important, too, that we should assess our needs for Commonwealth immigrants, and the skills which are especially short of manpower. We must continue to train immigrants in special skills with a view to their returning home and helping development in their own countries, but it would be necessary to ensure that they did so. We must not forget that we still need some unskilled workers who come in under category A vouchers. I am thinking particularly of domestic staff, nursing auxiliaries for hospitals, and so on.
The evasions of the law have led to the measures already announced by the Home Secretary on 4th February for combating evasion. He said that immigration officers would be freshly instructed, first, to scrutinise with even greater care, in whatever cases they judge necessary, the bona fides and travel documents of Commonwealth citizens seeking entry as students or visitors or as dependants of Commonwealth citizens resident here. Secondly, they would be instructed to make full use of their powers as immigration officers to admit a Commonwealth citizen subject to a condition restricting his period of stay. One of the effects of the latter instruction would be that students, although admitted as freely as before, would be normally admitted for only a specified period which would be extended if necessary as


long as they were genuinely pursuing their studies.
In addition, my right hon. Friend announced other measures. First, it is our intention to reinforce the staffs in certain overseas posts by assigning to them experienced immigration officers to assist in dealing with applications for entry certificates at source. Immigration officers have now been selected and my right hon. Friend hopes that it will be possible for them to take up their posts soon. It is administratively desirable and much kinder to stop the would-be evaders of the law at source rather than turn them back at London Airport.
Other aspects of the immigration control we have still under review. It is well-known that these are matters on which we wish to take fully into account the views of other Commonwealth Governments, and that on 9th March my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced our intention that a high-level mission should visit a number of Commonwealth countries to consider and discuss with the Governments concerned what new measures might be adopted, particularly in the country of origin, to regulate the flow of immigrants to the United Kingdom, including the need to prevent evasion of our control.
The function of the mission will be exploratory and fact-finding. It has not yet been decided which Commonwealth countries the mission will visit, but it would obviously be useful to include some of the countries from which we receive a substantial number of immigrants and we shall be consulting the Commonwealth Governments concerned about this. I am particularly glad to be able to inform the House that Earl Mountbatten of Burma has accepted from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister an invitation to lead this mission. I can think of no one better qualified for that important task than this outstanding figure in our national life, a man who is known for his deep feeling for the Commonwealth and all it stands for. I am sure that the appointment will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
When our consultations are complete, we shall be in a position to take our review of the immigration control a stage further. To do so in advance of completion of the consultations would

be premature and might lead to wrong decisions being taken. In the meantime, there is the other aspect of Commonwealth immigration which claims our attention, the situation of people of other races who live in our midst. The right hon. Gentleman referred to this at length. It is, I know, the earnest wish of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that these newcomers, like the many others who preceded them through the centuries, will be peacefully and amicably absorbed into our community.
The Government appreciate that this depends mainly upon the climate of public opinion, and that there is a limit to what can be achieved by Government action alone. But we are determined to do what can be done, and we are convinced that there is an important place for the measure which we shall shortly introduce, the Bill mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, to deal with racial discrimination in public places and with the evil of incitement to racial hatred.
There is, of course, much else of a positive kind to be done to ease the integration of Commonwealth immigrants. Some of these problems have been studied by the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council, set up in 1962 under the chairmanship of Lady Reading. The Council has already published three reports. It has been reinforced in the past few weeks by the addition of five new members, and it is continuing its most valuable work. The problems in this field are difficult, and, as far as the Government are concerned, they touch upon the responsibilities of many Ministers.
Chief among the problems is, undoubtedly, housing. Immigrants have come, in the main, to those cities where jobs have been easily found, and these are just the places where housing problems are most difficult. The most acute is the shortage of dwellings to let at low rents. The presence of immigrants has aggravated the housing problem—let us face it—by increasing the relative shortage of houses and by worsening housing conditions where they were already bad. But they have not caused the problem. It existed before they came.
The problem can be solved only by the provision of more low-rented houses, and the Government have made clear that


they intend to pursue a vigorous housing policy directed to the provision of more houses of better quality, and the local authorities will be encouraged to provide a greater proportion of the output of new houses so that more are available for the people in most urgent need. But the provision of an adequate number of dwellings to be let at inexpensive rents will take time, even with the use of the more speedy building methods, and, in the meantime, it must be the aim to see that existing powers are used to ensure reasonable living conditions.
Local authorities already possess considerable powers in this direction to improve bad conditions in existing houses. They can control numbers by directions to prevent or reduce overcrowding in houses in multi-occupation. They can require houses to be kept in reasonable repair and that certain facilities are provided. In the worst possible cases, they can take over the management themselves. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is keeping these powers under review, and, if necessary, will propose further legislation.
Other matters which are being studied by my right hon. Friends concern the special education needs of immigrants, both adults and children, and the various health problems of people from tropical climates overseas who come to live here. The Ministers responsible and the local authorities of our big towns and cities are pursuing these and other problems, but the fact that responsibility is so dispersed adds to the difficulty in dealing with problems as they arise.
As he announced on 9th March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, therefore, invited the Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Economic Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), to make himself especially responsible, in a personal capacity, for co-ordinating Government action in the field and for promoting, through the Departments concerned, the efforts of the local authorities and the voluntary bodies.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already started work. He has already had discussions with the High Commissioners of some Commonwealth countries concerned, particularly on the

part which can be played by welfare officers appointed by those Governments who are already working in this country. He has had preliminary consultations with Lady Reading, with the National Advisory Officer for Commonwealth Immigrants appointed on the recommendation of the Advisory Council, with representatives of some of the immigrant interests in this country and with other persons already active in these matters.
My hon. Friend has been in touch with the Netherlands Government and hopes to make a visit to the Netherlands shortly, on a date still to be arranged, to collect first-hand information on how the authorities there have gone about tackling their immigration problem and to draw upon their experience. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the problem is not on all fours, but there may be a great deal to be learned from what has been happening in Holland.
A most helpful meeting has been held with representatives of the local authority associations for England and Wales at which the initiative taken by the Government in this matter was warmly welcomed. My hon. Friend is assured of the co-operation of the local authorities which he met. This week, he begins in London the series of visits he plans to make to individual local authorities in order to discuss with people on the spot, representatives of voluntary, welfare and other organisations and of the churches, as well as members and officers of the local councils, their experience of the problems arising and the way in which they are seeking to overcome them.
In these preliminary discussions, my hon. Friend has been deeply impressed by the fund of good will which clearly exists towards the immigrants and the desire that they should exist not on the fringes of the community, but should form an integral part of it. His aim is to channel and to broaden what is being done so that the common aim of a greater degree of integration can be achieved as quickly and as effectively as possible. I know that the House as a whole will wish to pay tribute to the valuable work already being done by a wide range of agencies throughout the country.
The Government fully recognise the magnitude of the problem and the social consequences which would arise if racial feeling began to run high. Happily, this


is not the case in this country at the moment, and it is the Christian duty of every man and woman, white and coloured, to see that it does not happen. There are the social difficulties, many of them great, of people with differing habits and customs living together, but these difficulties and problems are not insurmountable. I think that all hon. Members will agree with the view expressed by the present Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, when he told us last year that those immigrants who are here legally will stay as long as they wish to do so.
Before I sit down, I wish to pay tribute to the work now being done in Great Britain by the Commonwealth immigrants who live among us. Every right hon. and hon. Gentleman will be readily aware of the contributions they have made in many fields, especially in our hospitals and transport undertakings.
I hope that this debate will also help to get Commonwealth immigration into its right perspective, that it will allay fears and that it will encourage local authorities and progressive organisations throughout the country as well as the Government to tackle these social problems as they arise.

5.0 p.m.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: No one could possibly cavil at the tone of the two speeches we have just heard. They were both reasonable and both constructive. I have absolutely no desire—and I hope that none of my hon. Friends have—to raise the temperature of the debate in any way. The Lord President of the Council spoke of these as delicate and sensitive matters. They are. They always have been. Therefore, it becomes all of us to speak on these issues with restraint.
I am not trying to be provocative or in any way raise the temperature when I say how pleased we all are at the change in tone compared with some previous debates on this subject.

Sir C. Osborne: And votes.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I am choosing my words very carefully here and I should be grateful to be allowed to choose them without help. If we want to retain our future debates on these delicate and sensitive issues at this temperature and at this level, I make one

suggestion which, if accepted, would, I think, remove them from the arena for ever. It is a suggestion I make to the Home Secretary, whose approach has always been reasonable and moderate in every pronouncement he has ever made.
I think that he will understand me when I say that there are many on these benches who have some sense of grievance and rancour at certain utterances which were made two and a half years ago and in some subsequent debates. I think this sentiment is right and understandable. I have just been rereading the debates on the Second and Third readings of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and they do not make very attractive reading.
I would say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he says one word in his speech tonight of recantation of some of these utterances and of contrition for some of the remarks made to my right hon. and learned Friends, I think he can rest assured that there will never again be an attempt to make this a cat"s paw of politics or to make it a factious issue. I recommend that to him with all sincerity and he will find that it will pay him and his party warmly for the future. Indeed, I go further and say that it will pay the country and the immigrants as well.
If I say one other thing which might be interpreted as being contentious, I would recommend hon. Members who may have found recent past history in these matters distasteful to study the debates that were taking place in this House 60 years ago on the Aliens Act, a Measure that was equally hotly contested and equally the subject of, in my view, malicious accusations. In that case, one party was accused of anti-Semitism just as we were recently accused of racialism. We might have known that history would repeat itself, because the Opposition of the day in 1909 became the Government a year later and continued the Act just as before until the time came for them eventually to strengthen it. I will not draw any particular moral from that episode except to say that history does indeed repeat itself.
Proposals put forward today by my right hon. Friend the Member for


Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) and the statement by the Lord President of the Council both need some study because there was much that comes afresh to some of us. I do not propose to repeat what has been said as I am only too conscious of how many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, but it all seems to me to lead to one conclusion—the necessity, for social reasons, of dispersal of immigrants throughout the community.
I come from an area where there is no racial problem. There is, of course, congestion because of the drift to the South-East, but I notice that faces of a different hue are appearing. Little or no difficulty is caused and no feelings are aroused because of this very factor of dispersal.
Therefore, I would say that we should be selective in our attitude towards the immigrants whom we take in and to welcome, in particular, those who seek dispersal, that is to say those who do not seek or do not wish to live, for social or cultural or religious reasons, in their own community. I do not want to stress this point too much, because it might lead me into a rather difficult argument, but I think right hon. and hon. Members will see what I mean. This seems to me to be one aim which we ought to adopt in any of the measures or palliatives or panaceas we may choose to adopt.
I would like to welcome the appointment of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), to be in charge of the new Committee. I must say, however, that it was with some slight surprise that I learned that there was any kind of under-employment at the Department of Economic Affairs. I make no further comment on that. I cannot help feeling, however, that the right home or base for this appointment remains the Home Office. The information on the settlement and migration figures, scant as it is, is mostly in the Home Office. It is also the Department of State to which the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Committee reports and to which it has made many useful and important reports. But this is not a major point and I will leave it at that.
I also welcome the proposed Bill to prevent racial discrimination. I am speaking for myself, without committing anyone on this side of the House, but I propose to support that Bill sight unseen. Of course, we must critically examine it to see whether it is workable but I think that is a risk to be run. I have been, in my new attitude—I will confess to that—very much swayed by the opinions of those who know the immigrant communities. I cannot but feel that such a Bill would be a gesture of goodwill, more especially if more unpalatable restrictions on immigration are in the offing.
I feel that such a Bill will now help assimilation or integration, which are two terms of art of sociology, and of rather different meaning, but I think that "adjustment" or "absorption" is a more convenient omnibus phrase. Such a Bill, above all else, will avoid the danger of members of these communities withdrawing into themselves, which, in turn, produces the militancy of which we have so far been remarkably free. Such a Bill will not be a solution but it will be a salve to wounded pride.
We also need a great deal of study of the other Measures for restriction which have been proposed and which I now welcome in any shape or form. I do not quite agree with my right hon. Friend"s arguments about employment. I agree with the Leader of the House that we shall need much immigrant labour. We shall need a good deal of it for specific employments, but I am moving towards the opinion that if we are to have such immigrant labour, it cannot any longer carry with it the right of settlement or establishment. I do not want to go into details because, as hon. Members will realise, this would mean legislation, but if these two rights were removed, we could have more of the selective schemes of recruitment such as the Barbados scheme for London Transport and some other very interesting proposals which Dr. Eric Williams has put forward. These should be considered and they should not involve ultimate settlement and establishment.
When we are considering the sources of such immigrant labour, I must frankly once again come out in favour of discrimination. I find that on Third Reading of the Bill I made a modest plea that


we should discriminate in favour of the West Indians and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) was the lonely voice on either side of the House who said "Hear, hear". West Indians, if I can choose the phrase, may be at the opposite end to us in the racial spectrum, but the fact is that without exception they are the most assimilable of all the immigrants. They are the most British orientated in their culture and we have a peculiar debt to them which we owe to no other people in the world.

Mr. Bernard Braine: They play rather better cricket.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Sometimes too well. They have a particular call on us which no other people have.
When we have discussions of this problem and when we read articles under the title of "The Dark Million", carrying a sort of sinister connotation which does not always correspond with reality, I cannot help feeling that the incidents which we deplore have been incredibly few and that there is virtually no other nation which could have received the dark million into its midst so remarkably happily as we have done. That is an immense credit both to us and to our guests.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I should like in a very humble way to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) who throughout these discussions over the years has been the voice of moderation in this matter. We should not let this opportunity pass without a special word of tribute to him. He has not only the voice of moderation in these matters but a particular love for the West Indies, and I like to think that one was father of the other; and to some extent his love of the West Indies and his knowledge of the people there have brought even greater humanitarianism to his point of view. I was delighted by the way in which he spoke and I would very much like him to know how much my feeling is shared by both sides of the House.
I should also like to tell the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) how much I welcomed the tone of his remarks. With a little contradiction, he spoke of a Council of State, saying in one breath that he, like The Times, did not want these matters handed to some

Olympian body, while in the next he said that he wanted a Council of State. I will not quarrel with him as to which of those expressions it should be, but if whatever we have today is what he wants I am very pleased with it.
There is a difference between what we have had in recent years and what is now "Olympian" or a "Council of State". This is all that any of us have meant when from either side of the House we have asked for this issue to be taken out of party politics. We have simply said that this is an issue, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, which emotion and prejudice and irrationalism could easily dominate. That is why we have said that we should approach it as a Council of State and not as fighting party politicians. That is all we ask, because we agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the underlying issues need discussion. It is the approach, the absence of prejudice, the absence of temper and name-calling which really matter.
The right hon. Member for Reigate said that he did not wish to raise the temperature of the debate, and neither do I. I want to say this one thing and then leave it alone. I am tempted into it only by something the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that some hon. Members on this side of the House ought to make some apology for things said two or three years ago. Without wishing to raise the temperature any more than the right hon. Gentleman did, I would only say that that feeling is reciprocated. Has he seen the leaflet which was circulated in Birmingham in order to win one constituency in Birmingham—it does not matter which—carrying the imprint of the Tory agent on it and showing an arrow aimed at the heart of Britain and saying:
Let"s go with Labour. 300,000 immigrants if you vote Labour tomorrow.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants some apology, I will give it very gladly if once and for all we can exorcise this temper and this name-calling, but I hope that equally he will be willing to say that one or two apologies from that side on matters like this might be helpful.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: I rather regret what the hon. Gentleman has said. None of us here is responsible for what


is said outside the House of Commons and my remarks referred only to what had been said, at different stages, in the House. I have with me some quotations which are thoroughly regrettable.

Mr. Chapman: Politics inside the House and politics outside cannot be divorced. The people who were saying things which the right hon. Gentleman disliked hearing inside the House were also saying them outside, and the same is true the other way round. The two went hand in hand, certainly at the last election. I leave it at that, because I do not want to raise the temperature after the early speeches. But when the right hon. Gentleman asks for apologies, I hope that they will be given on both sides.
The crucial issue in the debate is that of numbers, as was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Monmouth. The key of his speech was that he wanted the numbers of male working immigrants entering the country to be drastically reduced. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can quite get away, as he tried to do, with avoiding questions about what numbers are involved. If the numbers are examined, it will be seen that we do not have much room for manoeuvre.
I want to take the figures of vouchers issued in the last year—June, 1963, to June, 1964—to A and B voucher applicants, namely, people with jobs to come to and people with special skills that we need. I want to examine the breakdown of the total. There were about 19,000 vouchers issued in those two categories. Nearly 2,000 of the applicants were teachers. Who will start cutting there? About 5,000 were other graduates and professional people. Do we need those, or can we cut the number, given the shortage in nearly every category in our community? That accounts for 7,000 out of the 19,000.
Another 1,200 were doctors. Who will cut that number? What drastic reduction can we make there? I say to the right hon. Member for Monmouth—I am sorry that he has gone—that words do not mean anything unless we examine these categories. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will

support me when I say that about 40 percent. of the doctors in our hospitals are immigrants. Where would we be without them in our hospital service? We are desperately short of them. I am in favour of increasing, not cutting, the numbers of immigrants in that category and in many other categories.
Another 2,000 applicants were draughtsmen and engineering and building craftsmen. Who is in favour of cutting that number? I will not refer to the 1,000 nurses who were issued with vouchers. If some hon. Members had their way and drastic reductions were made in the numbers of immigrants four metropolitan hospitals—and many others—would be closed tomorrow.
I come to the other two main categories—about 2,000 domestic staff and 4,000 general people. When we add up the figures, we find that about 11,000 or 12,000 out of the 19,000 were teachers, nurses, doctors, other graduates, draughtsmen and building craftsmen.
It is meaningless to start talk about making drastic cuts unless we are willing to go through each category and say where we can economise. I do not believe that when that is done hon. Members will start economising. They will say, "We had better look for some more". They are fulfilling needs throughout the country. Some of them are doing jobs which are not listed but which would cause our economy to collapse if they were not done. There would not be a bus service in Birmingham if it not for the West Indians. We have I do not know how many buses off the road because of the shortage of crews. We are worried about the situation, but without the West Indians, who are driving those which are on the road, we should be in very great difficulty.
I say bluntly to hon. Members opposite that I am in favour of moderation in numbers. Governments never say how many vouchers they aim to issue in a year; they never set a target. We are able to judge afterwards what figure they had in mind. But the aim of about 30,000 or 40,000 entrants a year—half of them, perhaps, with A and B vouchers and half, perhaps, relatives, which is roughly how it is working out—seems to me sensible. It is only sensible because we need the labour involved.

Sir C. Osborne: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with the question which was put to me, that there are half a million still entitled to come here and that with every 40,000 who come another 160,000 may be added to that half a million?

Mr. Chapman: That is a legitimate point about the number of people who have the legal right under the Act to come back to this country because of previous residence here. This is a worrying thing. I did not want to pass comment. I did not know, as the hon. Gentleman did not know, that this was of such magnitude. But do not let us blow it up into another big scare about total numbers. My right hon. and learned Friend would, I think, be perfectly willing to say that if the returning flow were to reach Niagara proportions he would ask for powers to deal with the matter. That has been his general attitude throughout. All that I am talking about—and this was the point made by the right hon. Member for Monmouth—is th numbers with vouchers admitted to work here. I hope I have disposed of that one reasonably successfully.
I come to the other point that I wish to make about numbers. Let us for heaven"s sake keep the total in proportion. Last year we admitted 48,000 Commonwealth immigrants. But we also admitted 42,000 aliens. Are we to be forced into making drastic cuts to the point when we let in half as many people from our Commonwealth as aliens? When people get all excited, quite rightly—I am not grumbling: this is the place in which to bring matters into the open—and carry on big campaigns concerning 30,000 or 40,000 immigrants, I want to know why they never talk about the 30,000 or 40,000 aliens. Is it because one sort of immigrant has a black face and the other a white face? That is a legitimate question to ask the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), in particular.

Sir C. Osborne: If I am called, I will deal with it.

Mr. Chapman: That is a point which the hon. Gentleman should answer. When he further breaks down the 48,000 immigrants who came here last year and realises that 35,000 of them were wives and families, he will realise that there is not much left of his argument.
I should like to say something to the Government. I said it throughout the election in my constituency. Hon. Members opposite tried to pretend that I was "kidding" my constituents, but they believed me. I said that I thought that the target of a maximum of 50,000 immigrants a year was what this country could absorb. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) went round saying that it would mean 100,000 if Donald Chapman said 50,000. That is the way in which the election was fought in some constituencies. I have said this consistently and it is what the Government largely are doing and which Governments of both parties have done. If we can think in terms of 30,000 or 40,000 immigrants—half relatives, and half representing labour which we need— I hope that the issue is dead and that we can agree that this is a sensible way to look at the problem.
I come finally to one or two positive proposals about integration. As my right and learned Friend knows, the British Caribbean Association has been on official deputations to five Ministries with suggestions for positive measures to ease integration. I say to the right hon. Member for Monmouth that every one of his points—I am not claiming that they are ours—has been urged on Ministries by our deputations. The Association is an all-party body. This is because there is a fund of good will about immigration. We have been pressing the Ministries hard on this, and we will continue to do so.
There are, however, one or two other points which I should like to stress in the hope that they will eventually be accepted. I join the right hon. Member for Reigate in hoping that there will be a bit more dispersal. I should like to see priority for vouchers given to people in categories A and B and who are willing to settle in areas where there are few immigrants,—with jobs already arranged in those areas or a willingness, not to be directed forcibly, but to be given information leading them to settle in areas where there are not undue concentrations of immigrants. This could be a sensible dispersal system built in to the voucher scheme. I hope very much that it will receive consideration.
Secondly, I suggest that hon. Members on both sides, especially hon. Members like the hon. Member for Louth,


who has some influence in this, should set out to get immigrants accepted in places in the public eye, for example, as shop assistants in the big stores. There is a good deal of resistance by employers in big stores to accept coloured immigrants into service in the big stores and in other aspects in the public eye.
I should like to see this progress in Government Departments which deal with the public. I should like to see the number of coloured faces behind the counter in National Insurance offices increasing. Let us show that we believe in this, from the Government downwards, and let us lay stress on making efforts in the places to which I have referred.
Thirdly—and I think that the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) has urged this in the House, and we have urged it in the British Caribbean Association for a long time—can we please make a beginning by having one or two coloured policemen in our community? This might have a big effect. I know that there are dangers in this in that a policeman"s beat might include areas where a coloured policeman would not be welcome; but these matters have to be judged on their merits, and there are many towns which do not have this prejudice. A beginning could be made in towns where there are harmonious relations. I should like to see the stamp of public approval on the employment of coloured policemen in these places. I think that this would do a great deal to ease the problem of integration.
I should like to see a few coloured people employed in the Palace of Westminster. I know that we have one or two people from the West Indies and elsewhere on the staff here, but I should like us, as a House of Commons, to show that we believe in this matter, and that we are going to make a deliberate attempt to fit them into some jobs here. They would, of course, be employed only on merit. I do not want anybody to be taken out of turn, but we should make a deliberate attempt to show that we believe in these things.

Mr. Harold Gurden: What has the hon. Gentleman done about dispersal on his doorstep in Birmingham? Has he encouraged his friends on the local authority to start

a housing association in Northfield to disperse some of these people? Secondly, will he say why the 50,000 expanded to 100,000 is not reasonable in view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the evasions coming in? Does not he know that the figure has doubled?

Mr. Chapman: That is typical of the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman, and I do not intend to deal with it. It is not worth while doing so. He is trying to get me to put the public stamp of approval on 50,000 evasions. I have no intention of approving evasions. All of us believe in keeping the total to 50,000, and the hon. Gentleman"s distortion of what I said is typical of what he tried to do throughout the election campaign. I do not want to raise that issue here. The hon. Gentleman does not do the House a service by trying to carry on that kind of argument here.
The Labour-controlled City Council in Birmingham—and in part this is in answer to what the hon. Member for Selly Oak asked—has asked the Government—and I want to press this on the Government because I consider that it is applicable to other cities—for extra power to control the multi-occupation of houses. Indeed, there is a private Bill going through the House in connection with this matter.
Under the 1961 Housing Act, houses in multi-occupation can be controlled only once they have become occupied. They become subject to inspection, and so on, only once they become lodging houses, and possibly subject to being overcrowded. What Birmingham has asked for—and I support this most strongly—is that this power should be made much more clear by allowing the City to control these houses in advance of multi-occupation. It should have power to compile a register of such houses which it approves and accepts after inspection as suitable premises for the purpose. It should have general control over the areas in which they are situated, and some idea of the people who want to run them as lodging houses. I suggest that this stronger control over houses in multi-occupation, and the power to maintain a register, as opposed to having a power to disapprove after occupation, would help in many areas, apart from Birmingham.
I want to see more teacher courses to deal with the problems of the areas from which immigrants come. Let teachers understand the history and the cultural pattern of the West Indies and Asia. We had some last year particularly, but we want more such courses. Let us have more teaching in school about biology. Let us teach our children that there is no biological difference between black and white on the scale that is made out. Let us have our children brought to a more scientific understanding of these problems.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will press for a Commonwealth-wide conference on migration. It is wrong for the Commonwealth to call itself multi-racial and yet be unwilling, in parts of it, to accept coloured migrants. For example, Australia ought to accept some coloured people from the West Indies. I tackled the Australian Minister for Air on this during a radio broadcast. He said that Australia accepted only students. I said that the situation was crazy. I pointed out that Australia accepted building trade workers from Britain because they were needed, but that she would not accept masons, as they call them, from Jamaica.
We are playing a silly game. Everything depends on the colour of a man"s skin. I think that I won the argument with the Australian Minister, because there is no answer to my argument. If there is a need for building trade workers in Australia and there is a surplus in Jamaica, or a willingness, or indeed a need, to migrate from there, I cannot for the life of me see why, if this is supposed to be a multi-racial Commonwealth, we cannot talk to each other frankly about our prejudices and restrictions and sit down together as a Commonwealth to work out a common approach to, and a sharing of, each other"s burdens.
I could go on for a long time, but I shall not do so. I have been near to this problem for many years. I am glad that this issue is being raised today out of the bickering and the name-calling of earlier years on to a level of what, quite rightly, the right hon. Member for Monmouth called a Council of State. Let it remain that way in the coming years.

5.38 p.m.

Brigadier Sir John Smyth: I have heard the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) speak on this subject on many occasions. I know what a tremendous enthusiast he is, particularly for the West Indians, about whom he always speaks with great warmth and authority.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman very much when he reminds us that immigrants, and particularly coloured immigrants, are doing a lot of valuable work in this country and that we certainly could not do without them at the moment. I also agree with him very much when he talks about the importance of dispersal, about which I shall have something to say later.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) has done a great service in initiating this debate, and already it has been very worth while. I thought that the Leader of the House made a most valuable speech, both in its tone and in its content. He gave us a lot of extremely valuable information, about numbers, and so on, which emphasised the size of the problem facing us.
I was extremely interested to hear that Earl Mountbatten of Burma has taken on the job of liaison within the Commonwealth. I do not think that anyone could bring it off better than he can. His reputation is tremendous and his authority in this sort of question is absolutely second to none. But he will have a difficult task, because all these countries find it extremely difficult to keep their people in—especially countries like India and Pakistan. They find great difficulty in limiting the numbers from their end. Whatever happens, we will have to institute our own controls here.
It is high time that the two sides of the House got together, as they are doing today, on this most important and difficult problem. Even if no more immigrants came to this country than we have already absorbed they would present a great problem for future generations, and it is about them that the Government and the Minister should be thinking. I do not suggest that we can take this matter altogether out of party politics. At one time I hoped that we could take defence out of party politics, and then, perhaps, education, but I have become wiser with


the years and have come to the conclusion that we must not set our sights too high.
It is very likely that a number of points of acute controversy will continue to exist between the two sides of the House. We must accept that fact. Nevertheless, it is essential that both sides should agree on the general principles and the machinery to be adopted, otherwise we shall have complete chaos in a few years" time, as a result of attempts to change policy with changing Governments.
I realise that the problem can readily escalate and that it may get completely out of hand in 10 years" time if it is neglected. There are two basic factors on which we surely all agree. First, we must not take in more immigrants than we can easily assimilate and for whom we can find employment and accommodation. If we do not adopt that policy we shall lay up for ourselves a constant state of irritation, which might lead to worse things.
If we do not allow families to come into the country as units we shall have all sorts of trouble with women. The female element is absolutely essential, and the sooner the men here have their wives with them the better I shall be pleased. My son emigrated to Australia, and when he went I said to him, "If you are going to Australia you must integrate yourself into the country in every way. That is the only way to do it." He has managed to do so. He now has children, and is an Australian to all intents and purposes. He is extremely happy.
That is what we want to do for people who come to this country, but it must be in accordance with numbers that we can assimilate and for whom we can provide employment and accommodation. Those people that we accept must be treated for all purposes as citizens of the United Kingdom, without any discrimination.
To see how far we have progressed in this matter I was looking through the report of the debate that we had on 17th February, 1961—not many years ago—on a Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). At that time my hon. Friend"s Motion was considered to be quite outrageous, in respect of the controls that he wanted to impose. On the other hand, the Amend-

ment moved by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) went to the other extreme, in saying that we should not have any control on immigration into this country.
With the passing of only a few years the two sides are meeting one another in the middle. It is extraordinary how much movement together has taken place. I spoke in that debate. I remember the hon. Member for Islington, East (Sir Eric Fletcher)—now Minister without Portfolio—saying that I had made a very balanced speech. My speech was in the middle of the two extremes. I started by saying:
This is a specially difficult problem for people like myself, who have spent a great part of their lives in the Commonwealth and are very Commonwealth-minded but who, at the same time, represent constituencies in which this problem vitally affects the numbers of people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 1952.]
I was there referring both to permanent residents and immigrant residents.
I have many friends, especially in India and Pakistan, many of whom write to me wanting to come over here. It is very difficult to have to tell them that they cannot. I am told that my constituency of Norwood today has one of the biggest, if not the biggest, combined immigrant and housing problems in the whole of London. It must be remembered that part of my constituency has the postal address of Brixton, although it is actually in Norwood. It borders on the constituency of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton).
By far the greater number of immigrants in my constituency—as anyone can see who walks through it—are coloured. Neither the local employment exchange nor the local borough council has any idea how many coloured immigrants there are, either in my constituency or in the Borough of Lambeth, because they are not registered separately, and the landlords in these areas always give a false idea of the numbers of people living in their houses. If one visits those houses in the morning one finds only a few people in them, but if one goes there in the evening one has to push the doors to shut them because so many people are inside.
The local employment exchange in Brixton tells me that it was absolutely swamped by applicants for employment


up to 1962, when the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was passed, but that it has now more or less got the situation in hand. Nevertheless, unemployment among coloured immigrants in my constituency and in Lambeth is considerably higher than it is in London as a whole, although the situation is very much better than it was.
The second point they made, about which I have personal experience, is that there is little colour prejudice on the part of employers, which is good to know. There is not much colour prejudice among workers, either. I know of one factory which has a Jamaican in charge and where all the workers are white. There has been no trouble in that factory at all.
But the housing officials paint a much more gloomy picture. They have about 6,000 families on the waiting list of the Lambeth Borough Council and they have now to take on at least another 6,000 as the residue from the L.C.C. Naturally, the coloured immigrants are a great problem from two points of view. First of all, they have to be housed somewhere and, therefore, they very often have to take precedence in their housing over other residents who have been waiting years to get a house. That cannot be helped, because the housing is arranged not on length of time of waiting, but on points, and that is apt to be a source—as anyone will understand—of considerable ill-feeling.
A great many of them live in what one might call the ghetto area of Norwood, where many coloured people are crowded together in houses which ought to be pulled down. There are two streets in my constituency where one will not see a white face. They are entirely coloured streets. The Lambeth Borough Council is faced with a great dilemma here. It would like to pull these houses down, but if it pulls them down, what is the council to do with the occupants? Where can it put them? Both the authorities and the permanent residents are setting great store by the pledge which the Labour Party gave at the election—which I hope can be carried out—that a Labour Government would give special help to local authorities in areas where immigrants have settled.
That is the immediate thing which is needed more than anything else, except

one other factor. So long as more immigrants are allowed to flock into Norwood and Lambeth, the situation will get progressively worse. It makes no sense to me that in a borough with 12,000 families on the waiting list, and no accommodation to spare, more immigrants are constantly coming in.
Here again, I turn to what the right hon. Gentleman said and what was said in the debate, to which I have referred, on 17th February, 1961, by Mr. Royle, as he was then, the Labour Member for Salford, West, and who made an excellent speech. He advocated exactly what the hon. Member for Northfield advocated just now, that there must be some arrangement for the dispersal of immigrants throughout the United Kingdom. We cannot allow all the immigrants to be concentrated in certain parts of some of our great cities. That is the immediate problem. It is because they are so crowded in a comparatively small number of areas that this very difficult problem arises.
I would, therefore, ask the Government to consider these three points. No new immigrants should be allowed into these boroughs which are bursting at the seams. There should be an arrangement for putting them somewhere else. I do not know how it will be done. Perhaps, to set an example, the members of the Cabinet might each agree to take 100 off me and to settle them down with jobs and accommodation in their constituencies. I put that to the Home Secretary as a possible proposition. I think that it is up to those Members of Parliament who do not suffer from this problem to help Members like me, who do.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): Does the right hon. and gallant Member want to direct the people away?

Sir J. Smyth: I think that that is a problem which the hon. Gentleman ought to think about. We insist on an employment voucher for a man, but nothing is said about where the man and his wife and family will live. I feel that that should be considered if one is to get a reasonable solution.
I asked one of the borough councillors the other day why so many


coloured immigrants want to come to Norwood. The answer he gave me was that there were three reasons. One was that so many of their friends had come there before and they always went where their friends were. That is a very good reason and it happens in many other places—they like to be together—but that does not make the problem any easier. The second reason, he said, was that there was a fairly good rate of employment—employment was reasonably good—and the third reason was that they were treated like human beings. I am glad of that, because this third reason is, I think, the thing which we all feel is most essential of all. If we take them in we have to treat them exactly like our own people in every way.
I am gratified that despite the numbers of immigrants which we have in Norwood and the difficulties of the housing situation, we have had so very little racial trouble. I always say that we have a duty to the immigrant to integrate him into our society, but he has a responsibility, too—to accustom himself to our ways of life and our habits.
I remember an occasion some years ago when the Government of India asked me to take an Indian officer back to India with me after we had had a V.C. reunion in this country. I went back on the "Viceroy of India", on which this man, who was a young Sikh Jemadar, was sailing. The P. and O. did him proud and gave him a first-class cabin to himself. All went well until the second day out, when the purser came to my cabin and said, "Would you come immediately? There are complaints about the frightful smell which is emanating from your friend"s cabin". As soon as I got there I knew exactly what it was. He was cooking an Indian meal in his cabin with ghee.
I have eaten a good deal of Indian food, but ghee makes me feel very sick and the smell of it makes many other Western people feel very sick. I went to see my friend, Ishar Singh, and said, "They have integrated you into their society and they have given you one of their best cabins. It is now up to you to see that you do not do anything which is offensive to them. I am not suggesting

that you should eat English food, which is abhorrent to you, but that you should make your stinks in a place where they will not offend anyone else". He did that and he had a very happy voyage.
We tend to talk a great deal about integration and it is not always an easy problem. I do not know how many hon. Members in the House have actually lived in an Indian village. It is quite an experience. Without doing that one does not know how the people live. For purposes of nature one has to trek out into the fields every morning and one soon gets used to it. But it is the other way round here. One has to realise that they have to integrate themselves, not only into our community, but into many of our habits which are not always very easy for them to follow.
I should like to say one word about the schools, because I feel that it is in the schools that integration is most important and is easiest, because the coloured and the white children get on very well together. If integration starts then, it will go right on with them through life. The difficulties are, in my constituency, that there are so many coloured children in some of these schools, some of whom, to begin with, are very backward—some cannot speak English at all—that it makes it extremely difficult for the staff to know how much attention they should give to the immigrant children at the expense of the others.
The other day I heard someone say, "You can solve this problem by sending the coloured children in buses to other schools." We cannot really do that. It would be purgatory for the children. It would emphasise the colour problem. I say definitely that where they live they have to be educated, and the answer is that we must not put too many of these children into one area, because it is living that matters.
I wish to say a word about the racial discrimination Bill. I know nothing about the Bill which may come before the House, but, of course, as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, we shall look at it with sympathy. But I feel that if racial hatred exists—I am happy that in my constituency there is not much evidence of it—it exists in the hearts and minds of men. It is my experience that we


shall not eliminate anything like that by the threat of fines and imprisonment. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the human approach is much more likely to succeed.
A few years ago I was asked to speak at a meeting of the Jewish Ex-service Men"s Association, for which I have a very high regard, and have had close connections both as a Minister and afterwards. The members wanted advice to be given to the Government to introduce more severe penalties against people who said rude things about Jews at open-air meetings, particularly at Fascist meetings. I was in a minority as the only one to advise that this should not be done. I was asked what should be done, and I said, "I suggest that you do not go to the meetings." They said, "We have never thought of that. There has always been a fracas there, with everyone calling one another names." I said, "Why do it?" So far as I know the members of that association benefited very much from that advice. Certainly, they have not agitated for extra legal powers any more.
I have nothing more in particular to say, except that I have not dealt with the question of casual visitors. In my constituency there is a big technical institute, an extremely good one, which I support and I go and talk to the students. But it raises an extra problem for my constituency because the students all have to live somewhere.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

6.3 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Administration of Justice Act 1965.
2. Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965.
3. Science and Technology Act 1965.
4. Kenya Republic Act 1965.
5. N uclear Installations (Amendment) Act 1965.

6. Education (Scotland) Act 1965.
7. Welsh Shipping Agency Act 1965.

And to the following Measure passed under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Prayer Book (Alternative and Other Services) Measure 1965. (No. 1.)

Orders of the Day — IMMIGRATION

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

6.15 p.m.

Sir J. Smyth: I would only say, in conclusion, that I am glad to have had the opportunity to take part in what I consider to have been an important and constructive debate. If all hon. Members cannot find a solution to this difficult problem—a solution which takes into account the years ahead, at least 10 years ahead, and the way in which this matter will affect future generations of present and immigrant residents—we will have failed in our duty. The debate so far augers extremely well for the future all-party approach which we would like to see on this difficult and important problem of immigration.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I hope that the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) will not regard it as an impertinence if I say how much I welcomed the tone and spirit of their remarks. Many years ago an hon. Member said in the House to the then Prime Minister that flattery and congratulations were welcome no matter how insignificant the source from which they came. I hope that they will accept my congratulations and flattery rather in his words than in his spirit.
That is not intended to imply that I agreed with every sentence and syllable that they expressed. It does not seem to me to be the job of the House of Commons, when this subject is being debated, to consider the minute differences between points of view as much as the overall agreement which now exists across party frontiers. We are all in favour of some sort of limitation. We all wholeheartedly oppose any sort of discrimination. We are all wholeheartedly agreed that there


should be assimilation or adjustment, whichever word one prefers to use. Those three points of view characterise the view and principles of both major parties.
Because of this agreement, rather than any potential disagreement, some weeks ago attempts were made to elevate, to use a controversial word, this matter out of the arena of party politics. It seemed to me then that there were same facets of public life which because aspects of civil liberties were involved, were best not discerned in the heat of political controversy. A parallel case has always been the all-party agreement over the daily religious life of the nation. The civil liberty element in immigration law and policy is parallel to that.
It was never our intention or hope to sweep the problems of immigration under an all-party carpet. Indeed, to my surprise for eight breathless days we attracted more publicity to the problems of immigration than was attracted during the lifetime of the previous Parliament. Although that made a serious political problem for some of us, none of us regretted it. It seemed to us at the time to be our task to concentrate on the objective study and remedies of the immigration problem rather than to avoid issues which we all freely and frankly agreed existed.
I say, without qualification, that we knew—all of us who fought the election in and around Birmingham—that every candidate of both major parties was presented, in some cases, with an irresistable temptation in regard to immigration policies. It was not a temptation confined to one party. It was a temptation in October, 1964, to reply to the allegation that a Labour Government would continue to allow immigrants into this country by saying that the Conservative Government had let them in in the first place.
I believe that this temptation was shared by all candidates in 1964 and might well have been shared by them all in the forthcoming election. I believe sincerely that the marginal vote they might have won, the trivial support they might have attracted would have done unbelievable harm to the peace and security of this country and put back the cause of good race relations by 50 or 100 years.

For that reason some felt that we should come together to emphasise the great area of agreement existing between both parties.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) spoke of this new attitude and hoped that Members on this side would make apologies for things said and done in the past. I believe that in some other quarters of the nation there is the need not so much for apology as atonement. If it is possible to allay some of the fears of Members of the Opposition with a voice as insignificant as mine I am prepared to say today that, looking back on the original Act, which limited the entry of Commonwealth citizens into this country, I feel that the Labour Party of that time should have supported it.
I make that point with no great joy for I was myself a passionate opponent of the Act. It is never easy for anyone in politics to suggest that he and his party have been even marginally wrong. I was a passionate opponent of that Act and the opposition was led by the then Leader of the Labour Party, a man for whom I had, and still have unqualified admiration and to whom I gave unqualified support. But, not withstanding those things, in the light of time and with the advantages of hindsight, I suspect that we were wrong to oppose that Act.

C. Osborne: Thank you.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not know that the hon. Gentleman has anything to thank me for, as I hope he will discover by the time I have concluded my remarks.
I believe that we opposed that Act for a strange combination of rational reasons and high principles. It seemed to us then as it seems to me now that there is not the slightest economic case for limiting immigration into this country. All the economic argument require more rather than less immigration. Believing the economic arguments to be overwhelming, I felt it would be immoral of me to accept pressure from people whose point of view I believed to be less elevated than my own.
I feared that I would be compromising my own principles if I disregarded economic arguments and said that some limitation was necessary. I now believe that there are social as well as economic arguments and I believe that unrestricted


immigration can only produce additional problems, additional suffering and additional hardship unless some kind of limitation is imposed and continued.
I have no doubt that over the next year or two the actual number of immigrants coming into this country will decline. Like other hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken, I do not believe that it is possible to stipulate a figure to which or by which they will decline, but I think that the continual tightening of regulations which in the past have been sufficiently slack to allow immigrants to eater the country illegally will result in an overall net decline.
I come to the melancholy view that we are fast approaching the time when, as well as imposing other qualifications on immigrants into this country, we must impose a test which tries to analyse which immigrants, as well as having jobs or special skills, are most likely to be assimilated into our national life. It is painful to say that, because one must face squarely the facts that any such test will fall most severely on the immigrant from Pakistan whose willingness and ability to be integrated is a good deal less than those from other parts of the Commonwealth, since they have not the advantage enjoyed by West Indians of speaking English from birth and who create in our major towns problems a good deal more severe than West Indian immigrants. That is a melancholy conclusion. but I am led to think that such a test must in the near future be applied.
I must say a brief word about the legislation that is proposed to make illegal in this country discrimination in public places and incitement to racial violence. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth referred to a man drinking a glass of beer. It is always easy to emphasise the difficulty of putting into operation a law making such discrimination illegal if one takes marginal cases. All such laws are difficult to define and apply and it is difficult to prosecute successfully the most marginal cases but we know that there are many cases of overt and obvious, almost proud discrimination. These are cases which can be easily identified and analysed and it is these which the law is basically intended to do something about.
The law will also help to create the right kind of climate in this country. I

flatter myself and other right hon. and hon. Members that the opinion of this House still counts for something and if we say corporately, as I believe we will in the not distant future, that there is universal abhorrence of any act which in itself is based on racial or religious discrimination that will have enormous effect in this country. It is something of a public relations exercise which we are in a unique position to undertake and I believe that we have the obligation to do so.
Obviously, none of the right principles, none of the right points of view, mean much unless they are accompanied by positive action and the positive action must be carried out by the local authorities. I do not know what are the intentions of the Government in relation to the form of grants and assistance to be given to the local and county councils of this country, but I hope that such assistance as will be forthcoming will not be paid as part of the block grant which already finances most local authority work.
If somewhere in the complicated formula by which finance committees are given that money an extra increment, a sign or symbol, is included for additional payments to be made for areas with a high immigrant population, then I have no doubt that the leaders of the councils of this country will say, as I would have said a year ago, when I had some influence in and certainly some concern with local government matters, "And about time, too. We have been spending money on immigrants for years and at last the Government is beginning to pay ".
The grants must be devoted for specific purposes and jobs under two heads. The first is housing. Housing must be helped in two positive ways. First, the Government must do something about the twilight areas. I regret not having brought today the speech I meant to launch on the House yesterday. In the Milner Holland Report reference was made to the fact that life in multi-occupation is now probably more grievously destructive than life in the slums. Today, in many great areas of once fine property, life is as sad, as desperate and as pathetic as it can be in any areas scheduled for demolition.
It is into these areas that immigrants have come in ever-increasing numbers.


In my own area, large houses, the inhabitants of which once voted for the father of the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), have now been allowed to decay, to run down, to be broken into units for 10, 15, or 20 people, and because there is a superficial appearance of solidarity, and because they appear to be all right structurally, there are no positive proposals to do anything there to help the immigrant housing problem.
We must, first, do something about the twilight areas—a term which seems to me to be one of the great misnomers of town and country planning. It implies the point of the divisions between good and bad, but in part of the area I know it is sometimes more like dead of night. If we can do something to help the general problem of multi-occupation and speed up the institution of improvements and renovations, we shall do something for immigrant housing.
Secondly, we must promote housing associations in areas where immigrants have not congregated before. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) what he was doing to promote this sort of thing. There is probably no one in the House who has done more than my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield to help assimilate immigrants into this country.
I can say to the hon. Member for Selly Oak that I, at least, am a vice-president of an organisation that takes some interest in immigrant housing and housing associations. I promise him that, before long, property is to be bought in his division. Immigrants are to be exported to his division, and I hope that the hon. Member will welcome them, and express to them his gratitude that they are getting better housing conditions. I hope that he will treat them with the tolerance and understanding that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield would show them were they to be exported to his division.
The other great area of activity must be education. In the great cities where immigrants congregate there are, as has been already stated today, classes that have more than 50 percent. of immigrant children. A small band of peripatetic teachers is trying to teach English to these

children on two or three days of the week, in temporary class rooms and in conditions that are a disgrace to the nation. In the areas into which the immigrants come there are all the social evils—bad schools as well as bad housing—and the children as well as being taught an alien language, are also required to be taught under some of the worst educational conditions in the country.
In my division there is a slight ray of hope which I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will commend to the entire country during the coming year. The headmaster of one school has pioneered a new text-book for teaching English which no longer concentrates on the traditional formula of the "nannie" wheeling the pram in St. James"s Park, the titled child feeding the swans, and all the other pictures that I am sure all of us can remember from the days when we learned to read.
The text book—"Living Together" and that is the spirit of the book—is the story of five children in the Sparkbrook division, two of them being English and three being immigrants. It shows their daily lives, their daily habits and practices. As well as teaching the children to read, it teaches them to realise that the little West Indian girl, the Pakistani girl and the Indian boy behave in the same way as the ethnic Birmingham children; that their habits are not all that different; that there is a great similarity, a great community of interest and a great human bond between them. It is the object of that headmaster and his devoted staff to produce a race of children who, in 15 or 20 years" time, will still remember that we are all basically the same, and that we should, and can, live together in harmony and tranquillity.
The real division in the House today is between those who want to see the object of this book come about and those who do not; those who look forward to a general and genuine assimilation in education, and those who reject it because, despite what I hope have been conciliatory remarks this afternoon, I cannot forget that there are hon. Members who have specifically rejected the idea of integration and who have said—and I think that I quote with some accuracy—"I do not want to live in a coffee-coloured society."


The great division here this afternoon is not between those who sit on one side of this Chamber or the other, but between those who, accepting the problem, and accepting the need to take practical and physical steps to remedy it, look forward to a solution confined to the people born in this "tight little, right little island," and those who accept the necessity for a greater bond of friendship and understanding between us and our Commonwealth partners. I hope that I come in the second category, and I believe most sincerely that the vast majority of hon. Members come into it, too.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I am very glad indeed to be able to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark-brook (Mr. Hattersley), because I agree with very much of what he has said and I liked very much, if I may say so, the way in which he said it. He is playing a very knowledgeable and constructive role in this difficult problem and, in doing so, he is putting the House of Commons very much in his debt. I was one of those who, in company with hon. Members opposite, opposed the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. I have no doubt, in retrospect, that I was wrong to do so, and I publicly recanted, if that is the right word, and explained why when we debated the subject in November last.
I am myself a believer in a bipartisan approach to the problem. I think that as far as possible it should be taken out of party politics, but I must say that it would be easier to achieve this if the Government were prepared to wipe the slate clean; if they were prepared to say that they were wrong to have opposed the 1962 Bill.
It is a very difficult thing for a Government to have to say—perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) was asking a little too much—but the hon. Member for Sparkbrook has this afternoon made the most generous personal acknowledgment which will, I think, make it much easier for some of my hon. Friends to discuss the subject in a constructive and non-party spirit, which I am sure we should all try to do.
For myself, I do not mind in the least whether or not hon. Members opposite recant, because I think it important to look forward to the future in this matter

and not backward to the past. I appreciate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) said, that this is an immensely important political issue, but does it really suit any party to make it a party political issue, and does it suit Britain and the Commonwealth to do so? I believe not.
In the short term, it would probably suit any party to adopt a very touch, very restrictive anti-immigrant policy. It would be popular, and I am sure that either party could win an election on it—one election. But I am sure that it would be a short-term electoral advantage. I may be wrong, but I have always believed that the way to win an election is to obtain the support of the middle-of-the-road, uncommitted voter. If I am right in that belief, I am sure that the electoral advantage would be short lived. In the end, it would lose support, and would deserve to lose it, because it would be wrong, and because the policy would actually have encouraged and perpetuated racial prejudice in Britain by tacitly accepting it as part of a party"s philosophy.
As long as Colin Jordan is the only advocate of prejudice in Britain it does not worry me very much, but if one of our great political parties, by making this an election issue, gave respectability to prejudice, we should be sowing a bitter seed of racial hatred and strife for future generations to reap. I am sure that we shall not do that.
This does not mean that we should be inhibited from putting forward a party policy on immigration. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend who made such a brilliant opening speech, on this matter. Of course we should do that. The Government must do it, and the Conservative Party is under a duty also to do it as the alternative Government of this country. What it does mean is that this policy should not be merely negative and should not pander to prejudice. It should be positive and constructive and liberal-minded. If all parties are working along those lines—I am greatly encouraged by this debate to believe that we are very much ad idem in this approach to the problem—there is much upon which we can agree.
I noticed with interest that last week the Daily Mail National Opinion Poll


gave a fairly substantial majority of the country as being in favour of keeping this issue out of party politics; 55 percent. were in favour of that course and 33 percent. were against it.
As my right hon. Friend said, any solution of the problem must fall into two parts—the control upon entry and the more postive aspect of the assimilation or absorption, as I think my right hon. Friend very aptly phrased it, of migrants already here. They are two distinct problems, but they are inter-connected and we should always talk about both at the same time and not select one or the other.
I want, first, to say something about the control of entry. There are about 45,000 or 50,000 Commonwealth immigrants now entering Britain every year. Until we can make some progress with assimilation and until, above all, we can do something about housing, I think that this is probably too many. However, I hope that we shall not get into an arid discussion about some arbitrary number to fix upon. We should look, rather, at the categories. I think I am right in saying that no C voucher holders have been admitted since the Government took office last October. As to the A"s and the B"s, I agree very much with the hon. Member for Birmingham. Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who gave the House some very interesting statistics. The hon. Gentleman always does his homework. I believe that only 14,000 voucher holders of all types were admitted in1964. If I am wrong, I shall be corrected.
There could of course be an immigration pause on A and B voucher holders, as there is at the moment on C voucher holders: but it would be a "cutting off your nose to spite your face" sort of policy and it would make things very difficult indeed for London Transport and for our hospitals, in particular. Moreover—and this is more important—it would deal with what is now only a relatively minor aspect of the problem, because of the 45,000 entrants last year I understand that 37,000 were not workers at all. They were dependants.
Therefore, the question arises—we must face it—whether we should

dramatically curtail the entry of dependants. I myself do not think that we should because, as my right hon. Friend said, to do so would be to perpetuate social problems which carry their own dangers. I think that we should tighten up on dependants and interpret what we mean by "dependants" much more strictly than we are doing at present. In my view, dependants should be limited to one wife and to young children with perhaps, in addition, a special what I might call compassionate classification, to admit special cases of other dependants after investigation. "Dependants" should not normally include other relations, sometimes not very closely related and sometimes not very young.
I believe that we should also have positive checks on cheating. I was very glad to hear what the Leader of the House said about this. Evasion, mainly I suppose by students, is running at the rate of about 5,000 a year.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): Between 9,000 and 10,000 in 1964 and about 900 in 1963, so far as we can judge. They were not all students.

Mr. Fisher: I was perhaps oversimplifying it and getting it wrong when I said 5,000 a year, but the figures the Home Secretary gave, if spread over the two years, would give that aggregate result.
As the Leader of the House told us, many students who come here for courses of study are staying on and taking jobs. This adds to our problem, but it is also inimical to the best interests of the countries of origin, which desperately want these young people back as soon as they are qualified. If there are loopholes, as I believe that there are, I believe that they should be closed if necessary by amending legislation if it cannot be done by administrative action.
As to health, I am one of those who advocate health checks in the country of origin rather than at the port of entry in Britain. To be effective, these would have to be carried out by health teams sent out from Britain to the principal exporting countries of the Commonwealth.
I turn now to the assimilation of those already here. I warmly welcome the Prime Minister"s appointment of a ministerial co-ordinating committee, and in particular, the personal appointment of the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), because I know how well the hon. Gentleman will do it. This was needed, and I am sure that the Committee will do very useful work. I was very glad to hear from the Leader of the House that the hon. Gentleman is to go to Holland to study the problem there and what the Dutch have done about it. This is exactly the sort of approach he should make.
I hope that one of the things that the hon. Gentleman will study in this country is a point made by the hon. Member for Northfield. I believe that he should look at the possibility of recruiting more immigrants into the public service and into jobs which are in the public eye. After all, bus and underground workers here have had a great success and have been very well received by the public. I believe that we should extend recruiting to such categories as postmen and—I hope very much policemen in the public service and to shop assistants and others in he private sector, people who come into contact with the public. It has been said already that for immigrants, particularly from the Asian countries of the Commonwealth, there is clearly a need for more teachers trained to teach English.
In a different category of action is the racial discrimination Bill which is being prepared. I remember that in the old days, when it was not so fashionable from my side of the House to say nice things on this subject, I was at one time a sponsor of Lord Brockway"s original Private Member"s Bill, so I naturally welcome the idea of the Government Bill on this subject. Legislation to change people"s prejudices is a very difficult thing to introduce and a very difficult type of legislation to enforce, but it may have come psychological value, and, subject to what the Bill may contain, I hope very much that my party will support it on Second Reading.
I agree very much with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) that its purpose should he not to punish, but to influence and alter discriminatory conduct. I do not think that breaches of it should be

the subject of criminal prosecution. I should have thought that the matter might best be dealt with by a statutory tribunal which could inquire into complaints and mediate privately between the parties concerned. As hon. Members know, this has been done in America and Canada very successfully, where the great majority of such cases are settled amicably and privately without reference to the courts and without even being heard in public.
There are some positive steps which could be taken in the local authority field. I am thinking especially of the provision of more council welfare officers. Willesden has always been one of the most successful of the London boroughs in dealing with immigrant problems. One of the reasons for this is that the Willesden Council employs a full-time West Indian welfare officer. There is no doubt that other areas with large migrant populations should do the same, but this all adds to the cost and of course to the rates. I believe that central Government funds should be made available to councils in whose boroughs immigrants have settled, in order to encourage and make possible a positive approach to this aspect of integration.
All these measures, although helpful in themselves, are really of minor importance compared with the central problem of housing. I do not think that boroughs with large migrant populations can fairly be expected to rehouse overcrowded immigrants solely from their own rate resources. In addition to the provision of hostels for single immigrants, there is need for extra finance from central Government funds for areas of large immigrant concentration. This, in my view, should be for housing generally, for additional houses for British people as well as for Commonwealth immigrants, and for the modernisation and improvement of houses as well as for new building.
But it is, I confess, a great deal easier to talk about providing new houses than actually to do it. We all know of the shortage of labour and materials, quite apart from the financial side, and until we can make physically some progress with the housing difficulty we must, in fairness to those already here, limit more effectively the influx of new arrivals.
I therefore come back, finally, to the crucial question of control of entry. If we can agree upon an entry policy I am sure that we can agree about the rest, and I am sure that it is in the interests of the immigrants, of Britain and of the Commonwealth that we should agree on these matters wherever we can. This issue is a challenge to our tolerance as a people and to our statesmanship in this House. I pray that we shall be wise enough to meet and surmount it.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. David Ennals: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). Both in this Chamber and in his work outside he has made over the years a very notable contribution to the cause of racial co-operation and the integration of immigrants in this country. All of us on this side of the House would want to pay tribute to what he said and what he has done. I would find it difficult to disagree with much of what the hon. Member said. When he spoke of the importance of trying to take a bipartisan approach and searching to see how far we can speak as a House of Commons rather than as parties, I go with him the whole way.
There are, of course, points on which we disagree, but we are dealing here with a subject which appeals to intense emotions that, if we allow them, can lead to intense antagonism and deep feeling. I am glad that we have gone a long way from the mood of the hustings and that we are able to deal with this subject with great reason and moderation.
I hope that the House will not object if, for a moment, I set the debate within the context of the world situation. The debate is taking place at a time when the world is watching the struggle for equal rights of all peoples in the United States. The march from Selma is half-way through its course, and I think that we all in the House and in the country have admired the courage and forthrightness of the stand taken by President Johnson. It would not be inappropriate to refer to two sentences from his speech last week, because they have some lessons for us.
The President said:
Rarely are we met with a challenge, not to our own growth or abundance, our welfare or security—but to the values and purpose and

meaning of our nation. The issue of equal rights for the American negro is such an issue, and should we defeat every enemy, double our wealth and conquer the stars and still be unequal to this issue then we shall have failed as a people and as a nation.
I believe that those words are as true for us as they are for the people of the United States, although we recognise that we are living here in a different situation. But we are living in a world in which racial issues are becoming more divisive than ever before.
I welcome the speech made yesterday by Mr. Arnold Smith, foreign affairs spokesman for Canada, when he spoke of the dangers of the division of humanity on sharp racial lines and of the tremendous constructive rôle of the Commonwealth in bridging this gap. I believe that there is a tremendously constructive rôle for the Commonwealth to play, but Britain is not fitted to lead this movement for racial harmony if we do not ourselves show courage and imagination in tackling immigration problems within our country.
While conscious of the problems that exist in 30 or 40 towns in this country—and my constituency is not one of them —we should not exaggerate them in comparison with the size of the country. About 1·5 percent. of the population is coloured. The problem is manageable.
The problem is twofold. First, it is by what means and to what extent we can control immigration, and by what means we can assure complete equality for all citizens, whatever their colour, once they are here. In facing both these problems we must be guided by our principles. There are some people, not of this House, who speak with anger and some prejudice and who wish to stimulate the prejudices of others. It is no harm for us to speak up here as elsewhere for the things in which we believe, for the basic qualities of mankind, whatever their colour, creed or race and for the right of all to freedom and equality whatever their background may be. Unless we start from these principles and unless, as one of my hon. Friends has said, we ourselves believe in these principles we cannot find a way to a genuine solution.
The first question is: have we the right to control immigration into Britain? I believe that we have the


right and that we must use it, on economic grounds, on employment grounds, for reasons of our housing problems, and for reasons of an excessive population. Each of these is a reason for restricting immigration into the country, but I would not believe that race is one of those reasons. As we have recognised, the inflow has already been greatly reduced by the bringing into operation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
If we look at the net inflow, using a different set of figures, subtracting the migrants who have left from the immigrants, we get an interesting picture. In 1959, the net inflow was 44,000; in 1960, it was 82,000; in 1961, it was 170,000; in 1962, it was 136,000, and, in 1963, only 10,000. We have come down to a very small figure in terms of our total population.
As already said by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, the Government have admitted only those with vouchers A and B and their dependants. No holders of C vouchers have been admitted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said, last year only 14,000 A and B voucher holders were admitted. There are some people still who say that we must stop the flow altogether. The right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) used the term "drastically reduce". We must question him, not in terms of figures, on what he really means and what would be the effect on us if this were done.
In 1963, and again I look at people who left as well as people who came in, 2,813 teachers left for other parts of the world from Britain and 1,659 teachers arrived as immigrants. That is about half the gap. The gap would have been twice as big had we not had those teachers coming in. In 1963, 3,159 nurses left Britain to go to work in other parts of the world and 1,428 came in. Nearly half the gap was filled by new immigrants. In 1963, there were 1,012 professional engineers who left this country to work elsewhere and 544 came in. Again, more than half the gap was filled. The same is true of chemists; 335 left and 151 came in.
To those who say that we should stop all people of skill and knowledge coming into this country I put the question: do

they also say that we must stop people of skill and knowledge going out? If we do the one without doing the other, we shall have a brain drain without any flow of brains coming back to fill a vital place in this country. As my hon. Friends have said and as is, I think, recognised on both sides of the House, it would be a bad day for the Health Service if, suddenly, there were no Commonwealth immigrants here to help us. It would be a bad day for our transport services, too, and for many industries in various parts of the country.
We must not totally stop the movement of skilled people. I agree with the hon. Member who suggested that we might give priority to special occupations, and I agree, also, that we should encourage those who come over here and work for a period without necessarily intending to stay to return to their own countries with the skills which they have gained. But to stop or, I believe, drastically to reduce the flow in an area in which there is small room for manoeuvre would be most unwise.
I very much welcome, on the other hand, the strong line taken by the right hon. Member for Monmouth about dependants. Dependants, wives and families, must be allowed to join their menfolk. If wives and children are separated from husbands and fathers, great social and human problems are created. I give one example. The statistics show that the number of cases of venereal disease among coloured immigrants falls as soon as families start to arrive. Much the same sort of thing is true in several other aspects of our social life.
I agree that we must consider carefully who are members of families. I do not believe that second cousins should come, but I am not certain that I go so far as the hon. Member for Surbiton when he almost suggests, as I understand him, that he would not have "grannies" coming in. In some societies, "grannies" have a very useful place, and I should not myself draw the line at useful "grannies" coming in as part of the family team.
What we have to do is to stop all forms of evasion. I welcome the announcements already made by the Government about the ways in which this is to be done. It affects students. We have all heard of examples of so-called students who have managed to get a letter from a college


saying that they would be welcomed, but who, having come here, have never reported for their studies but have simply settled down in some part of the country unknown and undetected. I am glad that we are tightening the control and accepting only genuine students, not bogus ones.
I was glad to hear the Leader of the House say that we shall grant students entry for a limited period, because it is vital that those who come over here from the Commonwealth to study must be given every inducement to return to their own countries. We cannot afford a brain drain, but neither can those Commonwealth countries send people here who then do not return to give their homelands the benefit of the experience which they have gained. I welcome the decisions which the Government have taken in this matter.
I warmly welcome, as many right hon. and hon. Members have, the decision that Earl Mountbatten of Burma is to lead the mission to the Commonwealth. No better man could have been chosen for the purpose. As is well known, it has always been our feeling on this side that it was most urgent and important to try to secure as much agreement with the Commonwealth countries as we possibly could, not only on ways in which they could limit the flood, but in preparing the way for those who do come. I agree with the suggestion that we ought to try to ensure that health checks are conducted before departure rather than after arrival. The announcement that immigration officers are to be posted at some of our offices overseas is excellent.
A few words now on the second aspect, the stress which must be laid on the need for an active policy on assimilation. Many proposals have been put forward by hon. Members from both sides, and I shall not repeat them. I endorse the welcome given to the new job for my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Economic Affairs. It is a new job on top of the other jobs which he has, but I know from personal experience, as other hon. Members do, that the service which he has rendered in these matters and the knowledge which he has gained makes him quite the most suitable person for the task. His appointment has been welcomed on both sides of the House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield said, there are jobs to be done by almost every Ministry. There is responsibility as regards housing, there is that need for special help for authorities with special problems in terms of housing—I agree with the hon. Member for Surbiton on this—there is the importance of establishing liaison officers and welfare officers working with local councils, the need to give special attention to health problems, among immigrants, and there are the education problems.
I pay tribute to the work of the many voluntary organisations which have played their part in the establishment of welfare and racial integration councils up and down the country. I hope that my hon. Friend, in his new assignment, will do everything he can to help these integration councils. All of us, whatever our religion, whatever our politics and whatever our other associations, must find ways of bringing the work of these voluntary organisations into even greater life and activity. I pay a tribute also to the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council which has set a very fine lead by its work.
Like other hon. Members, I await with great interest the Bill to make illegal racial discrimination in public places and incitement to racial hatred. We must be vigilant. The force of the law is necessary to stop the growth of dangerous racial tendencies which could worsen the situation in this country. But the problem can be dealt with ultimately not by negative restrictive means, but by positive action, and it is this which will decide whether we can win the battle against racial discrimination.
I welcome all that has been said in the debate to bring into it a mood of reason and harmony and to take the sting out of the party battle. For me, this has been one of the most fruitful and constructive debates in which it has been my privilege to take part.

7.7 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne: I shall follow the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Ennals) in looking at the situation in its world context. So far, this has not been done. First, however, I wish, if it is not out of place, to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) on his brilliant speech—I wish that I could make one


like it—and for the moderate and temperate way in which he put the case. When we get back to power, he will make a very good Home Secretary.
What worried me was the statement by the Leader of the House that there were a great number—I estimated over 500,000, and he agreed tentatively, though there may well be as many as a million—who are entitled to come here but over whom we have no control. The right hon. Gentleman agreed that there were 500,000, perhaps more. The Government do not know how many there are. This is what terrifies me and has terrified me for very many years.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I try to put the problem from the point of view of the English working-class people who live in the industrial centres and who have had to bear the social consequences of this terribly difficult problem. So far, only the point of view of the immigrants has been put. I shall try, as I have done over the past ten years, to put the point of view of the English family who have had to put up with the consequences of this intractable, almost insoluble problem. My right hon. Friend began by quoting from The Times of a fortnight ago. I hope that the House will allow me to quote from The Times of ten years ago.
I wrote to The Times on 10th February, 1955. I commend what I said to hon. Members on both sides of the House who are now appealing for an all-party approach. I wish that we had been given that approach ten years ago when I appealed for it. My letter concluded:
This difficult and many-sided problem will not be solved by being ignored. Surely it is of such far reaching magnitude that Parliament should turn itself into a Council of State and fashion a policy to deal with it which will have the support not only of the official Opposition and the Government but also of responsible trade union leaders.
I did not get any support then. I was called a Fascist in the House for saying those things. I think that I am entitled now to justify what I have done in the last ten years. On 5th December, 1958, I introduced a Motion calling for the control of immigration. I said that we should restrict immigration of all persons, irrespective of race, colour or creed. I said:

I should like, first, to stress what is stated very clearly in the Motion, that this restriction shall apply irrespective of race, colour or creed. I recognise that this subject is political dynamite"—
That was in 1958, and I was called a Fascist for saying it.

Mr. Chapman: Nonsense.

Sir C. Osborne: I will give the HANSARD quotation. I went on, in 1958—
and therefore I shall try to handle it with the same care and sense of responsibility that I should observe if it were real dynamite. I also recognise that this country is engaged in trying to build a multi-racial association which, if it succeeds, will be a pattern for the whole world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1958; Vol. 596, c. 1552.]
I could not have made a more moderate or more responsible approach, and for this I was shouted down in the House more than once and I had to appeal to the then Leader of the Opposition for a fair hearing. I am entitled now to say something about these things. For more than ten years I have begged this House—my own side as well as the party opposite—to face this problem, which haunted me, as it still haunts me, because I could see the social evils.

Mr. Ennals: rose—

Sir C. Osborne: Let me make my speech. I could see the social evils that the ordinary working-class man and woman and their family would have to bear. Therefore, I support strongly the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth that we should tighten up the controls and that we should drastically reduce the numbers who are coming in. I would like some control of that 500,000 to 1 million people over whom at present we have no control—and, indeed, of whom we have no real knowledge of their number.
I would like to refer to the general principles I have stated in the last ten years. The first is that everybody irrespective of race, colour or creed, is equal before the law and is entitled to be protected and respected by the law. Secondly, I have said time and again that those who stir up racial hatred, whether it be on ground of colour or anti-semitism or anything else, should be punished with the utmost severity of the law. Thirdly, I have said that those already here must be helped to live in the community and


to integrate into the community. These things I have said time and again.
But, having said these things, we must face the real issues which have so far not been touched. These lie in the problems of race, colour and religion allied to the startling growth in world population plus the terrible poverty in Afro-Asian countries. Unless these problems are fully overcome they will tear the human race apart. They will cause a war that will make other wars look like child"s play.
So far we have to admit to ourselves that good men and women throughout the world who have tried to solve these problems have so far been defeated and that the problems are not merely a matter of black versus white. We have these problems in Kashmir, with Hindu versus Moslem. We have them in the new East African states, with Asian versus African. We have them in Ceylon—perhaps worse there than in any other part of the world—with the Ceylonese versus the Tamils. We have them in South Africa and in the Southern United States—black versus white.
I have pleaded for so long and have asked, "Why should we bring these problems that good men everywhere have so far failed to solve unnecessarily into our country?" I would like to give the House a few figures that will show the size of the overall problem as I see it. The immigration problem is only one tiny aspect of the great world problem. The United Nations recently published figures of what we call the population explosion.
It is estimated that the human race first touched about 1,000 million people in 1840. It took 80 years—to 1920—to double to 2,000 million. In the next 40 years, to 1960, it reached 3,000 million. By the year 2000 there will be 6,000 million and in the year 2030 there will be 12,000 million souls on this planet. This is an enormous pressure which will come partly on our own country and with which we must deal.
The United Nations estimates that the general world population is increasing at about 2 percent. per annum. With geometric progression, this means doubling the population every 35 years. In the Indian Peninsula there are 550 mil-

lion people and it is estimated that, by the end of this century, it will contain over 1,000 million people. In 70 years" time there will be over 2,000 million people in the Indian Peninsula alone—and under the old rule they all would have been entitled to come to this country.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Oh.

Sir C. Osborne: These are the facts. The hon. Gentleman laughed ten years ago. It is not a funny problem but the most serious problem facing the world. Britain today has a population of 55 million people. It is true that our population is not increasing so rapidly as the Asian and African populations but, within the lifetime of children now living there will be 100 million people in these islands.

Mr. Chapman: Nonsense.

Sir C. Osborne: These are United Nations figures. I will produce my authority for saying this.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): Do the United Nations figures say that Great Britain will have a population of 100 million by the end of the year? Will this be the total population?

Sir C. Osborne: I said, this century. I think that I might be given a fair hearing. I said, carefully, that the rate of population growth is not so great in this country as in African and Asian countries. What we must face, however, is that the immigrant population will increase more rapidly than the native English. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will deny that. It is already happening.
The United Nations gives other figures. The increase of population in African is 2½ percent. per annum; in India it is just over 2½ percent.; in Latin America it is 3 percent. and in China, the biggest nation, with a population of 700 million, the rate is feared to be even higher, although we have no idea as to the actual figure. That is the immense pressure of population facing the world.
The United Nations fears that at the end of the century there could well be 10,000 million people on this earth.


Under the old regulations, a fair proportion of those would be allowed to come here freely. [Laughter.] It is no good smiling at this. I have a quotation of Labour Party policy on this issue according to which the Labour Party has no intention of stopping them. This is the size of the problem which I want hon. Members to consider.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation estimated in the early part of the year that with a world population of more than 6,000 million, food production would have to be increased five-fold to provide a reasonable standard of living, but in the last few years world food production has fallen and not increased. One day, in the lifetime of our grandchildren, the problem will be whether there is enough to eat and whether there is enough room, and yet we are unnecessarily bringing this acute problem into our country. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter.

Hon. Members: We are laughing at the hon. Gentleman.

Sir C. Osborne: I hope that hon. Gentleman are not laughing at the problem. Only a lunatic would laugh at this problem.
We often talk about the population explosion as though it were an act of God, or some freak of nature. It is nothing of the kind. It largely results from man"s control of medicine. In the last 50 years, we have largely conquered the old killer diseases of smallpox, cholera, typhoid and malaria which used to take millions of people. In addition, medical science has reduced infant mortality which at one time in Bombay reached the figure of 500 per 1,000 live births and where it is now down to 135 compared with 23 in this country. As other countries reach our standards of social hygiene, the growth in their populations will be something which even a halfwit would not laugh at. It is something so terrifying that it does not bear thinking about.
These vast numbers, with their immense poverty, their deep and deepening poverty, under the old rule were entitled to come here, and I would not blame them for coming here if they could get something to eat. When he wrote his thesis 150 years ago, Malthus said that the world population was kept

down by famines, disease, wars and floods. Now we have conquered those things and the Malthusian law no longer operates and the world faces such a terrible problem that anyone who thinks about it must have nightmares. Unless there is some gigantic control of world population, birth control, I do not see any answer. I am stating the world case and giving the problem its world setting from which we cannot escape.
Of course these people come here because of their intense and deepening poverty. The income per capita for Pakistan is £19 per annum, for India, £24 and for this country more than £400—again these are United Nations figures. I have preached this gospel for so long that I know the figures. If I were living in any of those countries, I would come here like a shot, and while these circumstances remain, the honey pot will attract them. If their deepening poverty and great numbers keep driving them here, the only way to preserve our way of life is to have some regulations, for which I have appealed time after time.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have objected that we could not manage without immigrant labour. Let us face that issue. During the war, this country had nearly 6 million men and women in uniform, fighting. We were also the arsenal of the Western world making armaments for all the free countries. Our hospitals were filled with men who had been wounded in the fighting. And yet we managed without immigrant labour. Why? Because we worked. [Laughter.] Those are the facts.

Mr. Foley: Would the hon. Gentleman like to say how many Irish immigrants were manning hospitals in Britain during the war and working in munitions factories?

Sir C. Osborne: I do not like to regard the Irish as immigrants. I regard the Irish as British as I am. When I fought in the First World War, I was glad to have a good Irishman at my side. All I am saying is that we managed without immigrant labour then and we could manage now.
But there is another issue which hon. Members must face. If hon. Members opposite say that we cannot manage without immigrant labour, when the children of these families become well educated,


as they are entitled to be, they will say that they will not do these dirty and disagreeable jobs and that they want good jobs. What do we do then? Do we bring in more and more uneducated immigrants to do the jobs for us? Is there to be an endless stream? A nation which will not provide its own services in a Welfare State.
Yesterday, the House discussed the country"s terrible housing problem, which is a disgrace to all of us, on whichever side of the House we sit. But it is undeniable that a million immigrants have made that housing problem worse, and if we bring in more it will make it even more so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Appalling."] Hon. Members say that that is appalling. As I am nagged at in this way, I will quote a letter which ought at least to quieten hon. Members. It is on House of Commons paper and is headed "Parliamentary Labour Party, House of Commons", and is dated 2nd June, 1961. It says:
Mr. Gaitskell has asked me as Secretary of the Parliamentary Labour Party to thank you for your letter of 23rd May. The Labour Party is opposed to the restriction of immigration as every Commonwealth citizen has the right as a British subject to enter this country at will. This has been the right of subjects of the Crown for many centuries and the Labour Party has always maintained it should be unconditional.
On that hon. Members opposite voted 46 times against the immigration Bill. I am entitled to ask them when this Gaitskell policy was changed. When did you change it? When did you announce that this change was to be made? When did you run away from this statement by Mr. Gaitskell?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Observations must be addressed to the Chair. I have not run away from anything.

Sir C. Osborne: I am sorry Mr. Speaker. I meant to refer to hon. Members opposite. I had not intended to quote this letter, but I had it up my sleeve in case I was attacked. Hon. Members opposite say that we ought to have a non-party approach to this problem, but who brought in the party approach? Who is responsible for it?
We face a terrible, difficult and tragic problem. We will not overcome it either

by laughing at it or ignoring it. I beg hon. Members to look at the world facts which press on us, for if we do not our children and our grandchildren will curse us for our moral cowardice.

7.30 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller: There has been an aura of cooperation and peaceful tranquillity in most of today"s speeches. We began with that of the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), in whose mellifluous voice was sweet, cool reason. There were, however, one or two bites in what he said. He asked for drastic reductions to be made in the scale of immigration. We are perhaps entitled to know what he means by "drastic". Does he mean that immigration should be stopped altogether? His speech was a curious blend of tolerance and a certain amount of antipathy, but I think that there were miscalculations on his part about certain aspects of the problem. But, like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I, too, from my own unexalted position, welcome the speech which he made.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) made some remarks about the necessity for changing the atmosphere of any debate associated with racial discrimination. Very gallantly, he gave words of advice to a Jewish ex-Service men"s organisation about, as he put it, rude remarks which might be made. No one really worries very much about rude remarks. What people do worry about, what matters and what probably these ex-Service men wanted to do was to put a stop, not to rude remarks, but to incitement to racial hatred and violence, which is a different story.
I should like to say a few words about some of the things which my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said. He talked about integration and assimilation as though he meant the same thing. I would agree that integration is absolutely essential, but I would not agree that it should necessarily go as far as assimilation, making people like each other to such an extent that they lose their own identity. I do not think that our immigrants wish this, nor do I think we consider it desirable.
In my experience—I say this honestly and deliberately—I have found no difference between the various groups in the way in which they settle down and integrate in the community. I have not found the difference between West Indians, Indians, Pakistanis and other groups which other people seem to have found. I have been associated with all these groups for a long time both in medical practice and in my constituency. I have found that each of them brings to the country to which he has emigrated something which enriches our society. I thought at one time that the opposite to what was said about West Indian immigrants applied—that their colourful flamboyance was something which people did not like. I like all the differences which these people bring to our society.
Everyone agrees that we have two problems. The first concerns the physical capacity of our small country to support a large increase in population, and the second concerns the integration into this community of those immigrants who are here and those who will come. But the trouble is that a third factor enters into our deliberations and, to a greater or lesser extent, prevents an objective appraisal. This factor is prejudice, which is an attitude of mind leading, perhaps, to discrimination, which is action against individuals or groups.
I should like to bring a little scientific theory and fact into the debate. According to Professor Robb, prejudice is defined as
not a negative concept, an absence of knowledge, but rather something positive, the fulfilment of a need".
Another authority, Dr. Michael Banton, says that the cause of prejudice
is in the subject, not in the object of prejudice. It is an irrational, pathological phenomenon, rising from the individual"s own inadequacies and resulting in displaced aggression".
This is using the word "prejudice" in its strongest sense. I agree that words have shades of meaning and that it often depends on the context in which they are used.
I believe that to a very great extent the word "Prejudice" does not apply today as it applied in the past. Perhaps "anti-

pathy", which is the opposite of sympathy, would be a better word in many respects. Nevertheless, there are people who, in the face of much evidence to the contrary, believe in white superiority, even in potential. It has been established that the result of intelligence quotient testing among people of different environments depends to a considerable extent on the environments and the established conventions of the people being tested. It is amazing how often people become prejudiced only when it is pointed out to them that they should be prejudiced. One often finds two children, one coloured and the other white, playing very happily and it is only when someone tells the white child that he should not be playing with the other child because of its colour that prejudice begins to build up.
In the United States, white American children and American Indian children were subjected, in a series of experiments, to certain tests. In one they were asked to draw a man and a horse. The Indian children did very well in drawing a horse and not so well—at least not as well as the white children—in drawing a man. The Indian children drew a much better horse because in their environment they were much more used to dealing with horses than the white children.
In another test children were shown pictures and were asked to indicate what was missing. When they were shown a picture of a house without a chimney, the children from the northern States could pick out the fact that there was no chimney, but children from sub-tropical America found it much more difficult to decide what was missing because their dwellings do not have chimneys.
In Scotland, children in the Hebrides —and I say this without casting any doubts on the intelligence of the people whom my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) represents—were found to be slower than children from industrial cities in completing certain tests. This was not because of inferior intelligence, but because in the areas from which they came there was no premium on speed. It did not matter whether things were done a little bit later or not. In the United States, in certain Indian tribes the parading of knowledge is considered bad taste when other people are present who do


not know the answer, and therefore children there often refuse, on this ground, to answer questions to which they know the answer.
In New York, Peterson and Lanier were able to demonstrate that there was no average difference in intelligence between white and negro children whom they examined. In 1950, in New York, T. W. Adorno and others tried to define the characteristics of the personality which absorbs impressions, distorts them, and then becomes a believer in discrimination. There are nine of them I shall not weary the House with the complete list, but here are some of them. First, conventionalism—rigid adherence to middle class values. Secondly, authoritarian submission—submissive, uncritical attitude towards idealised moral authorities of the in-group. Thirdly, authoritarian aggression—a tendancy to be on the lookout for, and to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values. Fourthly, power toughness—preoccupation with the dominance-submission, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension. So much for my little incursion into the realm of science.
No one wishes to sweep problems under the carpet, even delicate matters such as immigration and racial discrimination, but to parade, for all the world to see, ideas of white superiority on the flimsy, contrived, and prejudiced evidence which is all that the white supremacists can offer, is no tribute to the intelligence of the British people, and the less it is publicised the better.
I return to the two problems: first, our physical ability to accept a large number of immigrants, and, secondly, the integration of those whom we do accept. Regretfully, I must accept the proposition that a quart cannot go into a pint, and that completely unrestricted immigration is a practical impossibility, in spite of an outlook on my part which could not be more sympathetic. But this is the only ground on which I concede the necessity for limitation—no other ground—and I will not accept that merely because someone cooks with ghee he should not be allowed into this country.
When I visit an Indian ship, I make a point of having a meal with some of my Indian friends, who all speak perfect English, and who are all British orien-

tated as though they considered that were the best thing in the world to be. They cook in ghee, and I enjoy the meals that I have with them. My only reason for supporting limitation is the fact that this island is too small to take in everybody who wishes to come here
There is, I submit, a vast difference between the intentions of the Government and those of many Members on the benches opposite. One cannot get away from the feeling that the actions of some hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power were influenced by colour prejudice, or at least by colour antipathy. In Emerson"s immortal sentence:
What you are stands over you and thunders, so that I cannot hear what you say.
Can we integrate our immigrants into our community? I believe that we can, if by integration we mean, as I said previously, the completion of a whole by bringing together its component parts. It does not mean loss of identity of the various groups. Indeed, I am sure that many Scottish groups have integrated perfectly into Canadian society, into American society, and into Australian and New Zealand society without losing their specific identities, because the Caledonian societies in these countries are flourishing entities and are flourishing parts of the old country.
I believe that these people should be encouraged to keep alive their cultures and their arts to enrich our society. We have done this before. This nation of Britain has taken in and integrated to a considerable extent, and indeed assimilated to a considerable extent Celtic, Roman, Norman and Nordic Norse races, and in the United States they have integrated and assimilated British, Central and Eastern European and many other nations.
I believe that in these very difficult days, days which are difficult for mankind, a multi-racial society has a very much better chance of survival than one which considers itself so superior that it tries to insulate and isolate itself and prevent the mixing to which nature does not object. I am thinking of the little country of Switzerland, which is an almost perfect example of a multi-racial society. It is a country in which there are four different languages, and several different religions and cultures, yet it is prosperous and happy.
I agree that there should be dispersal of immigrants in the country. In Committee upstairs we are discussing Highland redevelopment. The population of Scotland today is about the same as it was 25 years ago. Scottish people are moving from Scotland at the rate of 25,000 to 30,000 a year. With the establishing of more industry in Scotland, and the strengthening of communications, not only can this drift South be halted, but repopulation can take place on a multiracial basis. This would be positive action.
I think that many of the difficulties of integration are more an indication of our failure than failure on the part of immigrants. The Government have a duty to make available to their people housing, employment, and social services. The latest position is a challenge to which the Government are responding, and in so doing will go far to overcome the problems which have arisen.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: In common with so many other hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the broad area of agreement on this question which has emerged over the last few weeks, an area of agreement which is found within my party, and which has spread across the Chamber. I think that we are all agreed on the framework of principle within which the immigration problem must be solved. There will be differences of emphasis within this general framework, and so there should be, because this is the House of Commons. We are not parrots, all repeating the same things and the same sentiments.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) on his splendid speech. I do not say that I agree with everything he said, but I am in broad agreement with the spirit of his speech. I venture to say that in an oratorical career which has had an almost alpine range, this speech will rank as one of the highest peaks.
I am deeply appreciative of the restraint of hon. Members. It would be so easy to score off each other, and doubtless we would enjoy doing so. But the casualty in such an exchange would be the nation itself. The positions of

both sides of the House have shifted in regard to this problem. The Labour Party strenuously opposed the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in 1962. It may have been mistaken to do so, but at any rate it was an honourable mistake, made in what was thought to be the interests of the Commonwealth.
What my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) was objecting to was not the opposition to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, but the manner in which that Act was resisted. He was objecting to certain aspects of the campaign at that time. This is a serious point. In the efforts that I have been able to make to promote some kind of inter-party agreement on this subject I have found a great deal of resentment among my hon. Friends, dating back to that period, and to the debates in this House.

Mr. Gurden: And the leper statement.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Just a minute; I can make my own speech. I am grateful for my hon. Friend"s offer, but I am in no need of his help.
During the course of that campaign Members with impeccable records of social service, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), were ludicrously accused of being racialists—and there has just been a reference—on my left—to the unfortunate intervention of the Prime Minister early this Session. If this feeling could be cleared away it would be of the utmost help in preparing the way for a really wide measure of agreement between the parties, in both principle and practice.
I do not think that we should ask for a recantation. The word "recant" is an unfortunate one to use, because it has Marian undertones which do not commend themselves to this House or to this country. But if we can have the kind of helpful statement we have had from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), made at a slightly higher level, it would facilitate the task of those who are trying to remove party acrimony from the debate.
There has been a change from the acrimony which existed at the beginning of the Session. The initiative has been


taken into the moderate and humane hands of the Home Secretary. There is a need for magnanimity on this issue among hon. Members on this side of the House. In this one respect it would be a great mistake for us to imitate the Irish by adopting their elephantine memories. We should not concentrate on the past, because the danger of that is that we may lose the future. I believe that it is the wish of the nation as a whole that we should practise restraint from the party point of view and strive by all the means in our power to find solutions to the extremely difficult problems which are raised by immigration.
I now want to make a non-controversial suggestion. We should be greatly helped if we could have some initiative from the Churches in this respect. The Council of Christians and Jews, on which I am happy to serve as a member, has played a most important part in forestalling the rise of any kind of racial or religious hatred in this country.
In these days of the ecumenical movement what could be more appropriate than some kind of initiative, taken at the highest level, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, and the Moderator of the Free Church Council, so that all the leaders of the Churches could get together and make an agreed statement on this subject?
They could also encourage their members to do work in voluntary service. However much the State may intervene in this sphere the scone for voluntary service remains large and important. It is my view that a moral initiative of the Churches would do much to arouse the conscience of the nation. It would have many of the merits one would hope to see flowing from a law penalising racial discrimination, without having any of its disadvantages.
We are all agreed on the need for strict control. I am in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth on this point. Further, if we are to have control it must be effective and fair. Therefore, we must get rid of evasion, as far as possible. At the moment, there is some confusion about the degree of evasion that exists. We should all be grateful to the Home

Secretary if he would deal with this question in some detail and give the House some clear figures on the matter. I am slightly confused by the rather conflicting information that we have had on the point.
I also agree with my right hon. Friend on the need for checks on students. They must be stringent. We must see that these people return to their own countries after completing their studies, not least because their countries urgently need their services. Bogus dependants must be checked and weeded out. Having said that, however, I want to welcome the humanitarian and warm approach of my right hon. Friend, especially on the question of dependants. He has set his face against any separation of families, and I am 100 percent. behind him in that. It represents a notable advance in tackling the whole problem that we should have had that firm declaration today.
The separation of families is intolerable on both compassionate and humanitarian grounds. Is is equally intolerable on social grounds for married men to be separated from their families, and for single men to have no chance of marrying among their own people. The existence of groups of such people constitutes a grave social liability. This is the answer to the argument tentatively put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, that immigrant workers might be allowed here without their dependants on a temporary basis, and with temporary work permits. The great objection to such a course is that such people would have no stake in the country and no social connection with it, and would be a constant source of social instability.
The great need in immigration policy is to preserve the family pattern of the immigrants, and here I would be so bold as to differ slightly from my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), who spoke on this point. I think that we need the older members of immigrant families as well as the younger members. We need the grandparents as well as the young children, because the older people, in the cultures from which the majority of our immigrants are coming, are, in a very real sense, the guardians of morality and the preservers of ethical standards. Although their economic contribution may be small, their social contribution is very great indeed.
There is a backlog of dependants. owing to the number of immigrants who have arrived in this country in the last decade, but that will reduce over the course of time. I do not think that the figure given by the Leader of the House was a very helpful one. It could not have been based on research; it was a guess, and it was the sort of guess which is best avoided. It only creates unnecessary concern, whereas we know that if one were ever to make a graph of this problem over the years, one would see that the graph of the numbers of dependents—provided that the present strict controls are maintained—would go down.
On the question of control, I want to say a word about this vexing phrase, "A drastic reduction". With the greatest respect and with much tentativeness, I would slightly differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth on this point. I think that it is a question of emphasis, that it stems back to basic economic attitudes, in that my views are basically expansionist and I think that my right hon. Friend has earned a deserved reputation as the guardian of public expenditure. He, therefore, does not see economic expansion as quite such a high priority as I do.
I would join with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) in questioning—I hope, a little less astringently—the scope for further limitation of vouchers. It is true that the granting of vouchers has already been drastically reduced. Those taken up have fallen from 30,000 in 1963 to under 15,000 in 1964. As the hon. Member pointed out, that over half of those are vouchers in category B, issued to those with special skills—doctors, nurses, graduates of all kinds and engineers—and the other half are issued to those with jobs to go to. As the Leader of the House has told us, the present Government have issued no vouchers at all in category C. Nobody suggests that we should cut out the doctors and nurses whom we desperately need and this leaves us with about 8,000 unskilled people going to jobs which need to be done. Surely we can absorb this?
If I may quote one statistic to attempt to put the question in to some sort of proportion, against that rate of 8,000 a year of unskilled workers coming in, we have 17,000 children born here every

week. I should have thought, therefore, that it was within our scope to deal with this problem.
The Leader of the House mentioned the question of reviewing the control of the system of granting vouchers. I should like to put a question to the Home Secretary, because there is a wide sphere of ignorance here. We do not know the principles on which these vouchers are granted and I wonder whether, perhaps, when he comes to reply to the debate, he could say something about that, as to how the Minister of Labour allocates these vouchers and what are the criteria which are used within the Ministry for granting or refusing them.
Having said that about control, I very much welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth has made it quite clear that he is not in favour of suspending immigration altogether, that he is not in favour of a morotorium or a pause. I think that that is a most important statement of principle, because, however strict the control is, there is a great difference between strictness of control and a complete denial to Commonwealth immigrants of the right to enter the country at all. There is a great gulf between those two positions and I am very delighted to find my right hon. Friend on what I consider to be the right side of that gulf.
I agree with my right hon. Friend and other speakers that this is an extremely grave problem. It is because I consider it grave that I have interested myself in the problem at all. However, we should get the whole matter into proportion. We should not panic; we should not exaggerate. There is no need for my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) to be terrified. I must say that the prospect of such a redoubtable hon. Member being terrified by anything rather staggers me.
If one looks at the figures, one sees that the proportion of the white population of the country remains at 98·5 percent. and the coloured percentage at 1·5 percent. With strict control, as we have now, surely this is a problem which it is well within our powers to solve? If we cannot solve it, there is something wrong with us. Of course, I know that the problem is greater in some areas because


of the greater concentration, but this is precisely why we need a Government-sponsored programme of dispersal to deal with the problem.
But dispersal is only one aspect of tackling the problem. We need urgent social action in such matters as housing, education, employment and health. In common with other hon. Members, I warmly welcome the appointment of the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) as co-ordinator in this matter, an idea which was put forward some time ago by hon. Members on this side of the House. I am delighted to hear that he will go to Holland to see what the Dutch are doing. If he needs any assistance on the journey from a batman or a valet, I would be very happy to offer my services during that visit. I should very much like to have the opportunity to see for myself what is being done in Holland for immigrants.
Housing has rightly been singled out as a subject of great discord. The central Government must intervene. There is a necessity for special grants of a nondiscriminatory character to those areas which are bearing more than their fair share of the burden of immigration. It is only by such measures that the existing powers against multi-occupation can be made a reality. There are plenty of powers and they are adequate powers, under the Acts of 1961, and 1964, but local authorities will not exercise these powers if the alternative to reducing multi-occupation is to render people homeless. This is the actual situation.
Education is certainly another top priority. I am deeply concerned about the danger of an educational apartheid growing up here, with black neighbourhood schools. We must look very carefully at what I may call the threshold of danger. When there is over a certain proportion of black pupils at a school, the whites take fright and remove their children. That is a subject which the Department of Education and Science should be considering, to see what is the threshold of danger and how we can avoid going over it.
In employment, the real and most crying need is for opportunity to get better jobs. The majority of immigrants at present do menial tasks or manual labour. I think that it is tolerable pro-

vided they know that there will be better opportunities for their children. The Minister of Labour, who has such an unrivalled knowledge of the trade union movement, could play a very positive rôle here in making sure that apprenticeship schemes are open to the children of present immigrants. He could also do all in his power to see that the present immigrants get a fair share of the white collar jobs if they are fitted to do them.
I wish to make a point about health. I see no reason why we should not have compulsory medical examinations and compulsory X-ray examinations of all immigrants entering the country, both those with vouchers and those who come as dependants.
All the measures that I have mentioned, these positive measures, are designed to contribute to the assimilation or integration of immigrants into the community but we should be reasonably clear about what we mean by these terms. What I mean is that I should like to see a situation where immigrants enjoy, in practice as well as in theory, full civil rights; a situation in which they play their full part in civic and public life and in all the activities of the community. There is nothing incompatible between that and the preservation of their own domestic culture in the home.
We should not be afraid of diversity of custom. After all it is only a primitive society which needs a high degree of conformity. An essence of the advanced or liberal society is that it can afford a wide degree of dissent. It is precisely this possibility of dissent which makes living in Western liberal society so agreeable to myself and, I am sure, to many other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I wish to say a word about how our society is being enriched by the immigrants. We are not being undermined, nor is the value of our society being depleted. I attach great importance to this point for the following reason. There is a way of speaking going on—fortunately, not in this House, but outside—which seems to assume that in Britain we have a perfect society on to which these Commonwealth immigrants come and batten. This is a very dangerous frame of discourse within which to carry on a debate. It is right, therefore, to reiterate


the importance of the contribution made by Commonwealth immigrants.
I am not going to make a sentimental, ritual genuflection to the nurses, but face the facts and state them as they are. They are quite simple. The National Health Service would collapse were it not for the Commonwealth doctors and nurses working within it. A total of 40 percent. of our doctors up to consultant level come from the Commonwealth, and 40 percent. of the junior hospital staff also come from the Commonwealth. The whole of the Health Service, unsatisfactory though it may be and creaking though it may be, is preserved in being by their services. Furthermore, the whole policy of economic expansion would be slowed down without their help.
More generally, although the immigrants have much to learn from us, we also have something to learn from them. We have something to learn from the cheerfulness of the West Indians which is a real and major contribution to our culture. We have something to learn, also, from the hard work of the Pakistanis and surely we have something to learn about the care of the family from these immigrants. They accept the burden of aged parents as part of a duty which should be discharged by the family as a whole. Surely we can learn something here, where the problem of our older people is loneliness and neglect by their families.
Last of all, we have something to learn from the immigrants" deep religious sense, something which, alas, is weakening in Britain. Many a nineteenth-century Gothic church in the centre or in the suburbs of our great cities has survived for years with a handful of worshippers, but, now thanks to the immigrants, the parsons find that they have congregations once again.
Above all, we must be positive and helpful in our approach. Our attitude should not be, "We are your brothers, but we really wish that you had not come." We should view this problem not in terms of a burden only, although this is a legitimate aspect of the whole problem but as affording an opportunity for help and service. There is a danger that we may so concentrate on the difficulties of the burden that our own moral attitudes will be subtly affected. Let us, for example, not be so concerned with the danger of being

infected with tuberculosis that we forget that there is an opportunity to relieve those who are sick and suffering.
Of course, we cannot, by immigration, solve the economic problems of the Commonwealth. That can be done only by capital investment on a scale greater than even this country can support. We can, however, make a small contribution to a very grave world problem, something which is more than a token, because it is a symbol and I believe that a symbol has transforming power. Our attitude to our coloured fellow citizens reflects and mirrors our own moral attitudes. If our attitude is positive and helpful, it can play a part out of all proportion to the numbers involved in finding a just solution to the coloured problem everywhere. Our attitude at home can, therefore, be—and I believe it will be—a major contribution to solving this greatest problem of our times, how men of different colour but of the same human family can work out their destinies in friendship, peace and good will.

8.19 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). With most of his speech I am in agreement, and I hope that in future debates we may find the hon. Member on this side of the House instead of on the benches opposite. In a great deal of the discussion in this debate ideas and extremely worthy sentiments have been aired, but I think we must examine also the facts and figures relating to areas where there is a great deal of immigration and where this problem, if there is a problem, does exist.
My constituency of Halifax, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, is listed among those areas in Britain which have an abnormally high coloured population. It is called an immigration area, so I think that it would be profitable to examine the situation as it is in Halifax, which, I think, may be regarded as a typical Northern Yorkshire town, containing a large number of immigrants. Recently, a Leeds University lecturer undertook a study of immigration in Yorkshire. In Halifax, since 1958, when the Pakistanis first settled there, we have had approximately 1,000 Pakistanis and, according to the 1961 census, we have 2,281 Irish,


328 from the sub-Continent of India and 58 West Indians as well as Ukrainian, Polish and Italian immigrants. We are an extremely cosmopolitan town, and all the better for that.
The total number of immigrants in Halifax is 6,354 so we can look at Halifax to see whether integration is taking place and how successful it is. From the point of view of jobs, 90 percent. of our resident hospital doctors are immigrants and, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford said, the National Health Service would collapse completely if these immigrants were not running it. That is certainly true of Halifax"s hospitals.
In Halifax, we have a declining population, along with many towns in the West Riding, where industries, many of which thrived in the past, are declining and where the new growth industries are not coming up. Therefore, we can afford to have people coming in to the town. Indeed, we need them if we are to thrive and prosper. It will be seen, therefore, that we welcome an increasing population if we can obtain it.
At the same time, the overall number of jobs in Halifax has increased by nearly 4,000 since 1960. Again, there is plenty of work for any immigrant to do. The sentiment that they are taking away jobs from resident British people is untrue in Halifax. Indeed, most of Halifax"s Pakistanis are employed in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs in the textile industry and their labour is badly needed. They are not taking up the skilled jobs in the engineering industry, which is the second largest industry in the town.
When considering the housing question, we can look at the facts in Halifax in contrast to the eccentric speech of the somewhat eccentric hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), who has left the Chamber. He said that the housing position had been made worse as a result of immigrants. This has been shown to be completely untrue in Halifax, which certainly has a housing problem. Almost all the Pakistanis who live in Halifax live away from the town centre. It has been shown that they are housed in places destined for slum clearance and that they are living in the worst houses in the town. Within the immigrant settlement area the houses are mainly back-to-back, stone

built dwellings, about 80 to 100 years old. These are the houses which not many other people would wish to occupy. In one part of the town where they live 76 percent. of their houses have no fixed baths, while water lavatories are usually in the yard or at the end of the block.
Among the houses in which the immigrants are living—in 400 of them—there are 292 shared outside toilets and 80 percent. of their houses show signs of dampness. It is obvious from these figures that most of the Pakistanis are living in houses which are scheduled for slum clearance within the next 10 to 15 years. At the same time, Pakistanis who want houses and who have the money to pay for them say that they find it quite easy to obtain them in the town. There is no shortage and they are not taking houses from other people. In fact, they show a preference for owning their own houses and in the town, at the time when the report was issued, only one Pakistani lived on a corporation housing estate and no Pakistanis were on the waiting list for corporation houses. This, again, refutes the idea that immigrants are taking houses away from resident British people.
It was found that the rent they paid varied from 10s. to £2 10s., but there was no evidence of Rachmanism either among the immigrants themselves who are landlords or among the resident Halifax people. Hon. Members may think that I am painting a rosy picture. What I am doing is giving the facts and figures in a town which is regarded as an immigrant town. It is as well to judge from these facts and figures and not from the ideas and suggestions that are sometimes put forward.
There is one problem which we face, which is that many of the beds in Halifax"s hospitals contain immigrants suffering from T.B., but they are not only immigrants to Halifax from abroad, but immigrants from Bradford who have overflowed into our hospitals. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Chelmsford that there should be compulsory X-rays of immigrants to this country would be difficult to enforce because it is hard to ensure at every airport and seaport that immigrants are X-rayed and that they wait for them to be developed because they leave and it is extremely difficult to trace them and ensure that they report back.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health not to be content with having simply one X-ray machine at London Airport, put there in the hope that immigrants will use it. There should be far more X-ray machines at seaports and airports and more encouragement given to people to use them. In the sphere of health generally, we have a great deal further to go because although immigrants do sometimes bring T.B. in, a great deal of it—indeed, the majority of it—is probably contracted here because of the bad living conditions with which they must put up after they arrive.
From the point of view of social integration in Halifax, we have been extremely successful compared with many other towns. The Pakistanis and other immigrants nearly all have their own social centres which, I understand, are quite good since they do not lead to isolation but give the immigrants the feeling that they have somewhere to go where they can meet people, enjoy themselves and have their own customs around them. The Pakistanis" social life include five coffee bars in the immigrant area and six Pakistani shops have been established for immigrants. I understand that these shops are well used. They also visit "pubs" in the immigrant area and there is no evidence to show that this is not working out well. They go to the cinema and to wrestling shows and have special films in Urdu.
I recommend all these things to local authorities and other towns, because this is the way to get integration of your immigrants without trouble, with friendliness and success. We have in the town four societies which are dedicated to establishing and promoting better international relations. These societies are thriving. Their membership has been increasing and they get particular support from young people in the town, I believe, because young people are extremely internationalist-minded these days and this is the kind of thing which appeals to them as social work and as a way in which they can help other people.
If hon. Members wish to see how integration can work, although we have not found all the answers in Halifax, recommend that they look at a town like Halifax to see the possibilities, to see

how this approach is succeeding and can succeed in other towns.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), with whose sensitive and civilised approach to this matter I believe we all appreciated that out of this helpful and constructive debate a very wide measure of agreement is now beginning to emerge. It is high time that we saw this difficult problem in perspective. Everyone must now be aware that there are certain urban communities which are confronted by an insuperable social problem. Halifax does not appear to be one of them, but it is quite clear that there are some communities which are faced with an almost insoluble problem. This does not mean, however, that if the problem is viewed and tackled on a national basis with a firm lead from the central Government it is beyond our capacity to deal with it.
Some people have talked of immigration into Britain as if it were a new phenomenon; it is not. Even in the 19th century when millions of our countrymen were going overseas—and some 20 million emigrated between 1815 and 1930—we absorbed very large numbers of immigrants from Eastern Europe. Indeed, by the 1930s the trend was reversed and a net outflow became a net inflow. Not only were large numbers of Britons returning to this country but we provided sanctuary here for some quarter of a million refugees from Nazi persecution. When the war came to an end tens of thousands of Poles, Ukrainians and other Eastern Europeans preferred to make their home in this country rather than return to Communist oppression. Such movements of population have always produced local tensions and difficulties, but, in general, these were only temporary and are seen to be of little consequence when viewed against the contribution made by these various groups of immigrants to the economy and to the enrichment of our national life.
What is new about immigration in recent years is that an overwhelming proportion of the newcomers have been coloured. White immigrants are not conspicuously different; coloured immigrants are. From this stems a great


deal of the difficulty. Several hon. Members have said that the problem is not a large one and that only 2 percent. of the total population is coloured. There is a danger here in trying to minimise the problem. If the 2 percent. were spread over the country there would be no problem at all, but the peculiar difficulty here arises from the fact that almost the whole of our coloured population is concentrated in some 33 towns and cities and, in some cases, number more than 20 percent. of the population, not 2 percent.
It is inevitable that such a concentration should take place, because immigrants go where they can find work and friends and where it is possible for them to find a roof under which to shelter. But it is precisely because they are immigrants, particularly coloured immigrants, that they have no residential qualifications; no one wants to house them. It is a question of their colour. The Milner Holland Report on Housing in Greater London makes clear that, as far as London is concerned, coloured immigrants encounter greater difficulty than they would if they were white, and often have to pay higher rents on that account. Overcrowding is inevitable. I will quote a passage from the Report:
64 percent. of coloured households were overcrowded"—
in one area—
compared with 29 percent. of the whole estate. … A strict enforcement of overcrowding legislation by local authorities would only add to difficulties and tend to increase the numbers of homeless; rehousing at the expense of those with long standing on a housing list could only lead to dissatisfaction and protest.
It is bad enough for our own people living in these areas, and on the fringes of them, to see this happening, to see already bad housing fast deteriorating. It is far worse for them to feel that there is no end to the problem; to feel that black people are taking over, and that the rest of the nation is indifferent to their plight.
I have had, and many hon. Members must also have had, despairing letters from people living in these areas. Such bitterness and frustration, if not dealt with, could engender a highly dangerous and explosive situation, and could blow sky high our national reputation for fair play and tolerance. We therefore have

no right to ignore the growing distress of our own people at the continuing influx of newcomers into their own areas.
It could, of course, be argued that a nation has a right to prevent a problem like this arising and that we should have foreseen this difficulty years ago and stopped immigration years ago. But this ignores three basic considerations. First, it has long been a tradition of this country—a noble and an honourable tradition —that Commonwealth citizens were free to come and go without let or hindrance, precisely because we regarded them as British, and not as foreigners. That was a tradition we could not lightly cast aside.
The second consideration is that immigrants do not come here as a result of any organised movement but simply because of a natural desire to escape from the poverty of their own homelands coinciding with an acute shortage of labour in this country. It was, after all, this combination of ambition and opportunity that motivated millions of our own countrymen in the past, and which still motivates emigrants all over the world today.
The third consideration, as has been stated in speech after speech, is that in present conditions—and I stress "in present conditions"—immigrants are meeting a real economic need here. As has been said, without immigrant labour many of our transport services would come to a halt, many night shifts would stop, and many heavy jobs in industry could not be manned. As the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said, we would have acute difficulty in running our hospitals.
I remember being questioned during the election by a young man who wanted to know whether, if elected, I would demand in Parliament that "the blacks"—which was the term he used—should be sent back home. I noticed that beside him was an attractive young woman in an interesting condition. I said to him, "Let us assume that you are married, that your wife is about to have her first baby and will be going into our local hospital in a fortnight"s time. Is is an important and exciting moment in your life. Tell me—do you want me to press for the black nurses


to be sent home now—straight away—or may we leave it until after the baby is born?" Of course, the point was taken at once.
In short, the immigrants are doing jobs here that our own people either cannot or will not do—the difficult jobs, the dirty jobs. Doubtless, these are better paid jobs than the immigrants would ever get at home. Doubtless, in many cases they lack the capacity, the skills and the education to do much better. Not that there is anything strange in this stratification of labour; it has been a feature of migratory movements throughout history. What would be new, and highly dangerous for a country such as ours, would be if we made it impossible for newcomers to improve their positions by ability, diligence and thrift, and for their children to be denied equality of opportunity.
I think the House recognises that there is clearly a limit to the number of newcomers we can take in. I believe that that limit has now been reached. Obviously it makes good social sense to continue to admit wives and small dependent children. I have seen some of the evils of migratory male labour in Africa. It obviously makes good economic sense in present circumstances to bring in people whose skills are in short supply. But more than this we cannot have.
There are two compelling reasons for stopping immigration now, subject to the two qualifications I have made. First, within a decade, perhaps much sooner, we are likely to be faced with a major problem of adjustment to large-scale automation with all its challenging and disturbing effects on patterns of work and leisure. It is possible to argue that, but for immigration, persistent shortage of labour in this country would have forced the pace of automation and would have brought its benefits here much sooner.
This is not idle speculation. I beg hon. Members to consider what has been happening in the United States, where automation is already seriously affecting employment. A combination of computers and automised self-regulating methods of production in industry, opening up prospects of almost unlimited productive capacity, needing less and less labour, is already a fact in the United States. This

is the prospect in a country where surplus capacity already co-exists with chronic unemployment.
In the last few years productivity in the United States has consistently risen. Yet unemployment has persistently remained at above 5 percent. Unemployment among teenagers has been rising and now stands, in that great land of opportunity across the Atlantic, at 15 percent. Significantly, unemployment among coloured teenagers is twice as high. I am told that these figures take no account whatsoever of considerable under-employment, and the real wastage of human resources in the American economy is far greater than official figures admit. It is known, however, that both unemployment and under-employment are most marked among the young, the old and the nonwhite. At the same time, automation is gathering momentum very fast.
I want to draw the attention of hon. Members to the warning which the United States Secretary of Labour gave to his fellow countrymen last year:
The confluence of surging population and driving technology is splitting the American labour force into tens of millions of "have"s "and millions of "have-nots". In our economy of 69 million jobs, those with wanted skills enjoy opportunity and earning power. But the others face a new and stark problem—exclusion on a permanent basis, both as producers and consumers, from economic life. This division of people threatens to create a human slag-heap. We cannot tolerate the development of a separate nation of the poor, the unskilled, the jobless, living within another nation of the well-off, the trained and the employed.
The House should bear in mind that the negroes" struggle for civil rights in the United States is also a struggle for equality in job opportunity. In short, the terrifying problem of race relations in that country is bound up with the still larger problem of how to adjust human beings, whatever their colour, to rapid and sometimes bewildering technological change.
No doubt it can be argued that this is Britain and not the United States, that we ought to be able, out of our superior wisdom, to devise means of utilising the new abundance which automation will bring in a way which will ensure a full life for all, and that the machines will be harnessed to serve man. I would merely say that it is not all that easy, as American experience is showing. I


suggest that this should be a warning to us in Britain. We have no right to add to the army of the unskilled, and when we have immigrants here we have no right to debar them from acquiring new skills.
This brings me to my second reason for stopping immigration now. We dare not and must not tolerate for one moment the idea that immigrants who have made their homes here for themselves and their children are second-class citizens whose labour is useful for the time being but whose presence is unwelcome. We have a solemn duty to constructively assist newcomers to adjust themselves to our way of life and we have to face squarely what that means.
It requires something more than speeches and declarations of intent. It means, first of all, a major housing drive in the areas affected, not merely to help the immigrants but to help our own people who were enduring bad housing before the immigrants arrived. It means switching resources to those areas. It means helping the thrifty immigrant who wants to acquire his own house to compete, as he cannot at the moment, on level terms with the rest.
It means dispersal to avoid ghettoes, and this means far more effective cooperation between local authorities than we have seen up to now. It means spreading children over a larger number of schools to avoid segregation in education. It means a crash programme to teach English to immigrants for whom English is not their mother tongue. It means much more stringent health checks at the ports—at the ports of departure not of entry. It means a much more vigorous programme of health education, since we know that because of their lower immunity a very large number of immigrants contract diseases like tuberculosis not in their country of origin but here after arrival. It means practical help to promote understanding within the immigrant areas. It means reinforcement of the wonderful inspiring work carried out by voluntary agencies in those areas now.
I should like to see the suggestion made by the Slough Council of Social Service put into effect in all the immigrant areas. This was that in Slough a community relations officer for immigrants should be

appointed without delay. This person would deal personally with family and group problems experienced by immigrants, act as liaison between voluntary organisations, statutory offices, local authority services and the immigrants, and attempt to develop better communications between host and immigrant populations.
We should have the imagination to see that all these tasks cannot be left to the local authorities in the immigrant areas. They did not create these problems in the first instance, and they have not the resources to solve them now. What is needed is an immediate effort by the central Government. We have been given a glimpse today and we are to hear more later of what the Government propose. We await the details with interest.
The situation requires something else —an immense effort of will to overcome prejudice and to ensure fair treatment. This is a psychological problem just as much as it is an economic and social one. A firm stand taken on immigration now by the Government and a declaration by them that they will help people in immigrant areas will do an enormous amount to ease the situation and to prepare for the adjustments which must be made.
I think that some people have tended to over-simplify the issue when they talk about integration. Words like "integration" and "assimilation" are often used in this context without people knowing really what they mean. It will take generations to secure the complete assimilation of the "dark strangers" within our gates. Immigrants differ. Some will be assimilated more easily than others, but it should not be beyond the wit of man to accomplish an adjustment which enables the immigrant who makes his home here and contributes to the economy to feel that he is a citizen with the same rights and duties as the rest and that he is fully accepted as a person. The Government have indicated that they will bring in legislation to outlaw discrimination in public places. As we are on the Adjournment is would be quite improper if I made any comment now on that Bill. We must reserve our judgment anyway until we see what sort of Bill is brought in.
But legislation is not likely to change people"s hearts. What will determine the


pace of adjustment is much more likely to be, if I may hazard a view, a combination of various factors: first, the readiness of communities outside the areas of immigrant concentration to accept the idea of dispersal. My impression is that a good many communities are ready, provided that not too many immigrants are dispersed to their areas at the outset. Second, a readiness on the part of employers to give a chance to the really able immigrant and the coloured school leaver. Third, the readiness of the trade unions to treat the coloured worker fairly and help him acquire new skills.
In essence, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. This is a moral problem. It is no good saying that we should have avoided it. One might as well say that our forbears should never have founded an Empire, should never have brought alien races within the protection of the British Crown. They did so. We are the people we are today because they took the flag across every sea and traded with every continent. The problem is here. It exists. It concerns us all. It concerns everyone in this country who cares about the health and vitality of our society. We cannot ignore it and we cannot escape from the consequences of its neglect.
I agree, therefore, with all those who say that it presents us with one of the greatest challenges in our history, a challenge which cuts right across all our other differences in the House. If we have the capacity to tackle this admittedly difficult human problem on a truly national basis with firmness and humanity, we shall succeed in overcoming the greatest challenge which has ever confronted us. I believe that we can succeed.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I had not originally intended to intervene in the debate, but, having heard some of the speeches from the benches opposite, I thought that I might make one or two observations.
If I may say so, it is difficult to follow the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). With a very large part of the sentiment contained in his speech those of us on this side who have thought about this issue and tried in a small way to deal with it would almost certainly

agree. With some of his economic arguments, on the other hand, I find myself in great disagreement. There is no economic evidence or argument whatever, as I see it—the United States is not analogous and, if I had more time, I could tell the hon. Gentleman why—for stopping immigrants coming into this country, particularly when the immigrants coming in are skilled people capable of doing the sort of jobs which are available here and for which there is clearly a demand.
The short point is that, if these jobs were not performed by immigrants, they would either not be performed at all or they would be performed by labour drawn from other sections within our community. I know not which. But I am certain that the economic argument which the hon. Gentleman advanced is not a good one.
The debate has been characterised by one great feature. The issue is plainly no longer a party-political one. I am sorry that I did not hear the speech of the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft). I should very much liked to have done so, but I have only had the opportunity of reading it on the tape. But what the right hon. Gentleman said and what other hon. Members opposite have said —I have heard almost the whole of the debate—shows that this is not now a party-political issue. It is the sort of issue on which I would hope that party feelings would not run high.
I made my maiden speech in the House on this issue about six months ago. I confess that, in the course of it, I used intemperate language, language of a sort which, I am told, one should not use in a maiden speech. I said one or two rather unpleasant things about the right hon. Member for Sutton Celdfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd). I am sorry that he is not in his place tonight, because, having risen to my feet now, I should have liked in his presence to say that I feel that my language on that occasion was intemperate and went a little too far. I also said one or two things about certain other hon. Members opposite who sit for Birmingham constituencies. I wish that I could withdraw those remarks, too. Unfortunately, I do not find myself able to do so.
We have heard, particularly from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr.


St. John-Stevas), what seems to me to be a sensitive and human approach to the problem; we have heard the other half of the approach from the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). One point raised by the hon. Member for Louth with which I should like to deal, and which it is particularly apposite for me to comment upon, since I represent a London constituency, is the suggestion that immigration has, somehow or other, caused or aggravated the housing shortage.
I invite hon. Members opposite to read the Milner Holland Report. On the face of it, that Report may apply only to London, but I am convinced that the lessons to be drawn from it are also applicable to any of the other great conurbations in England. One of the great things that the Milner Holland Committee did was to prove not that immigration had caused the housing problem but that precisely the opposite had taken place.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East quoted part of the Report and perhaps I might be allowed to quote another part. In analysing the effect of immigration on the housing problem in the Metropolis, the Report starts by dealing with the housing situation as it is faced by immigrants when they arrive in London and are trying to find accommodation. The first conclusion is a fairly obvious one—that immigrants are low on the list for council housing. Clearly, having just arrived, they have not the residential qualifications and have a low place in the points scheme.
Secondly, the Milner Holland Committee found that it is extremely difficult for immigrants to get private rented accommodation. The Report quotes a figure of 1,258 units of accommodation advertised and included in a survey in August. It was found that 27 percent. —I invite the House to note this in the England of 1965—of the landlords concerned clearly and openly barred coloured people.
Whatever we may think about the merits or demerits of the number of people who ought to be allowed into the country in 1965, the fact that 27 per cent. of the landlords covered by the survey openly operated a colour bar is something of which, as a nation, we should

be thoroughly ashamed. I am sure that hon. Members will be ashamed of that figure.
The third point made by the Milner Holland Report is that, faced with the incredible difficulty of finding housing accommodation, the immigrant is driven to buy. What happens then? The Report comments:
Unfortunately, these immigrants are all too often the victims not only of their own inexperience and ignorance of the traps which the London housing market lays for the unwary, but also of exploitation by a disreputable fringe of persons making quick profits out of their difficulties, such as the self-styled but quite unqualified "estate agent", the unscrupulous mortgage broker and the providers of loans on mortgage at high rates of interest.
Of course, the immigrant is forced into this position. He must have somewhere to live and house his family. Not being able to find a council flat or private rented accommodation—availability of which has gone down, as the Report shows, particularly in London—he must buy. What is the result in human terms in London?
It cannot be said that the immigrants have caused the housing problem. The Report says, on page 202:
… immigrants come to London in search of work—and find it, for we have seen no evidence that they are more frequently unemployed or dependent on National Assistance than others in similar occupations.
I hope that that statement nails the myth that we heard so much about during the General Election.
The Report went on:
If they did not come, either their places would be taken by migrants from other parts of the country, or a large number of essential jobs would remain unfilled.
That is something we should remember,
The plight of the immigrant is the out-come, and too often an extreme example, of London"s housing difficulties; it is not their cause.
I represent a London constituency with a high immigrant population. I say in all seriousness to the Government that, although the immigrant population in London is not the cause of London"s housing difficulties, in terms of dealing with the problem of a coloured immigrant population in Central London I am convinced that housing is the key. People in my constituency are looking


to the Government to provide special and quick assistance for these twilight areas, as they have been called, although I believe that to be a bad description. My constituency is the sort of area that must be dealt with. It is the sort of area in which immigrants tend to accumulate.
I hope that the Government can give us some practical assurance tonight of their determination, which we know they have, to deal with this problem and to deal with it urgently. I hope that in 10 years" time another housing report such as the Milner Holland Report will not find 27 percent. of landlords refusing accommodation to coloured tenants in London.

9.0 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: I find myself in a somewhat unaccustomed position. From my proper place I can look down with some detachment on the Government Front Bench. Speaking from the Opposition Front Bench for the first time, I am glad to do so when the matter is of such deep concern to people all over Britain. For this if for no other reason I believe that we were right to bring this important problem to the House of Commons for public debate and public examination.
I pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), for it was he who took the initiative to seek this debate. All the speeches I have heard today have welcomed the opportunity for bringing this deep emotional problem out into the open and to expose it to the responsibility and restraint and the sense of history of the House.
I would like also to pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the way in which he helped to get the debate under way with a tone which was acceptable to both sides of the House. We wanted to judge this issue in the long term as a moral as well as a practical issue and we are all grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for helping to set the tone of the debate. He also gave us some very valuable figures, if we have had to argue about figures for some of the time.
I also welcome the appointment of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Economic Affairs, the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley). I saw him smiling when the question of Irish immigrants came up and acknow-

ledging that he may have a special contribution to make in this matter.
Every hon. Member who mentioned it also welcomed the appointment of Earl Mountbatten of Burma to head up the commission announced by the Prime Minister on 9th March. Here, I issue one note of warning. More consultation with Commonwealth Governments can be no substitute for a firm policy from the Government of this country, and I hope that the lines of that policy will be made clear before Earl Mountbatten goes out out his trek round the Commonwealth.
All 14 hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have made distinctive contributions. I believe that when HANSARD is read in the years to come the tone of the debate and almost the watershed of the change of attitudes and the coming together of attitudes which the debate has marked will be greatly to the credit of the House. On both sides of the House we are coming closer together on perhaps two main objectives, both of them necessary if we are to have a balanced policy towards immigration and the immigrant communities in our midst— control and adjustment. Of course, there are variations, but I believe that, by and large, we are coming very much closer together. We on this side at least are at one, and I believe that many hon. Members opposite are with us.
First, we on this side seek a great reduction in the inflow of immigrants to give this country time to deal with the problem in a practical and humane way. We must give a clear reassurance on control if we are to expect our own people to tackle the other part of the problem with confidence and good will. Secondly, I think that we are all seeking how best to help immigrants to adjust themselves—and I do not say more than adjust themselves because they, too, have their lives—to life in our community; and how best we may adjust ourselves to the new communities which have recently come to live in our midst. This is a two-way traffic—for these communities bring with them customs which are at first utterly different from ours, and a period of adjustment is essential. I do not believe that it will be half as important when their children come out of the schools which they shared with our children.
I am sure that all parties are agreed on one other matter; it came out of the debate today. While stating in clear and forthright terms the policies for which we stand, we are all determined not to seek party political advantage by playing on racial antagonisms. Declarations to this effect by Members on both sides have been a great gain in the debate. We have declared this to be, if I may use the word, taboo.
Today we are dealing with one of the great issues of our time. It is not only a problem of racial differences, although colour and race are very important factors. It is the deeper problem of compatibility between communities with differing and long-established customs, finding themselves, rather suddenly, living together, working together and becoming interdependent. The great differences in customs and outlook are at the heart of this matter. This may be temporary, but it is something which we must face here and now. The process of adjustment is bound to take time, but, as I said, I do not believe that this will be so with the children of immigrants who are educated here.
If these misunderstandings are not resolved, they will lead to tension and conflict. We can all read the frightful warnings from outside of the danger of allowing intolerance and frustration to grow. There have been some warnings in this country. I welcome this debate, because I believe that it will make a contribution to stopping extremism and avoiding those tensions being allowed to develop.
Many of us, having read recent news from the United States, would, I believe, wish to pay a real, deep tribute to President Kennedy and now to President Johnson for their imagination and courage in dealing with their own difficult problem of civil rights. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] But because our own problem is so recent, and because in our country basic political and legal rights are not at issue—and we are fortunate in this—we have, for a short time, an opportunity to get the immigrant communities and our own people moving forward in a concerted effort towards adjustment. This, I believe, describes the process of getting used to each other and mixing our labour and our play.

This is bound to be a long haul, and it will make great calls on patience and toleration on both sides. For these reasons, we, on this side of the House, welcome the broad measure of agreement which has emerged during the debate.
I now turn to one of the two other problems on which I wish to speak. That is controls. It is the more urgent side of the problem, but it is less difficult as it involves only Government action. The other part, adjustment, is more difficult, and even more important, because it involves human relationships.
On the tightening up of controls, I believe that we should be firm and clear. We have already heard the figures of arrivals of Commonwealth immigrants over the last few years, and we are very grateful to the Leader of the House for enlarging on what was already known to the House. For the time being—and I emphasise that—we should reduce still further new admissions under the three main categories for whom vouchers are issued.
For that action I would give three main reasons. First, because we need to adjust ourselves to the social problem in our midst. This is an over-riding need. Second, and this is an arguable case, because we already have a hidden surplus of manpower. Both the public and the private sectors of industry are carrying considerable surpluses of underemployed manpower. There will, I think, be no dispute that for the health of both sectors of industry, and for our capacity to compete successfully, both in home and in overseas markets, we need to strip for action, if we are to survive.
This is the opportunity, when new equipment is becoming available, to set more manpower free. Now is the opportunity to retrain and redeploy. [Interruption.] I have said that this is an arguable case. I am making the case on the one side. No doubt if the Home Secretary does not believe in this case he will meet it when he winds up the debate. I believe that we can no longer afford the easy short-term solution of importing additional manpower, which often has the effect of slowing down the healthy process of change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I know that some hon. Gentlemen opposite do not agree with me, but I propose to continue my speech. There is another side to that and I shall deal with it when I come to it.
We have enjoyed some important advantages by receiving help from our Commonwealth. I listened to the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill)— and I thought that her speech had a great impact—speaking of the reliance of her town on immigrant doctors. We have been glad to have the help of doctors and nurses, of men and women who work on our public transport, and in some of our factories, but I ask some of the hon. Members who object to this argument to consider also the needs of those countries from whom we are drawing nurses and doctors. I ask them to consult some of the high commissioners of some of the exporting countries.
We should now take further steps to reduce our reliance on continuing reinforcements of Commonwealth immigrants. This is a gradual process. I doubt whether our economy will founder because of a substantial reduction in the number of 14,000 voucher holders who came in last year.

Mr. Chapman: Chicken-feed.

Sir G. Sinclair: If it is chicken-feed our economy will not founder because of it. In the longer term this reduction should be a factor in forcing us to make better use of the manpower we already have, including the immigrants who are part of our community.
The third reason is that additional manpower from outside, combined with the results of our own rising birth rate, is putting extra burdens on our already overstretched resources in housing, transport, health and education in an island that is already overcrowded. That, if I remember, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) gave this as his main reason for subscribing to the doctrine of control.

Mr. Hattersley: The reason I gave, as I hope the record will show tomorrow, is that there is an economic necessity to have a certain amount of immigration but a social reason for control. My reference to a "right little, tight little island" comes from W. H. Auden, and was intended to be a criticism of our attitude, and not be in praise of it.

Sir G. Sinclair: I am sorry to have mistaken the purport of part of the hon. Member"s speech, because throughout it I found myself in agreement with him, as

I have been in many discussions I have had with him. I do not believe that we are divided on this.
Additional immigrants add to the social problem that we are facing, and which we recognise is a difficult one. We must not go on adding to it by allowing substantial numbers to come in if we are to get the best results in adjustment. When we have absorbed the problem and adjusted it we shall be in a better position to decide how many more immigrants should be invited in.
Further, ought we lightly to add to the burden that this country will have to carry if ever again we have to face a serious recession and rising unemployment? I put this as a question. I hope that it may never happen, but it does happen. This is an urgent matter which Government, management and organised labour must tackle together.
I now turn to the question of those immigrants who have already settled here. I agree that we must make reasonable provision for wives and young dependent children to join their menfolk over here. There is a special case for "grannies", as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) pointed out. The process of adjustment which we are all aiming at will be helped by the establishment of family units. On the other hand, imbalance between the sexes in immigrant communities produces difficult social problems—including V.D.—which tend to increase social antagonisms. I stand four-square behind my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth in saying that we must not divide families, and must provide for their coming here.
But in granting permission, even for wives and other dependants, we must make accommodation an important factor. I understand that in some areas accommodation is not a problem. The hon. Member for Halifax mentioned that it was not a problem in her area. In some crowded areas, however, it will not be easy.
I now turn to the question of the evasion of control. As the Home Secretary told the House on 4th February, this is becoming fairly large-scale. He gave a figure, I think, of 10,000 over two years, which was the best guess he could arrive at. The Prime Minister promised,


on 9th March, to take vigorous measures to tackle this problem and his announcement was welcomed from this side. The problem of evasion is an urgent and disturbing matter. It undermines public confidence in controls, and this is one of the most important parts of it. We hope that the Government will be successful in securing the active collaboration of the Governments of the countries of origin.
We would all, I think, wish to see continuing the longstanding tradition of students from overseas countries, especially from the Commonwealth, coming to our universities, even though the pressure on these and other institutions of higher education is already great. I would join with my right hon. friend the Member for Monmouth in paying a tribute to the much-maligned race of landladies who have provided, since the beginning of this century, a great deal of hospitality and friendship to hundreds of thousands of students.
It is important, however—I think that we all agree on this—that the length of their stay here for study should be laid down and should be enforced. Their own countries need them and they come for a set purpose, for a set time. I believe that that is as it should be. Since these stays are temporary, it should be possible to limit admissions of dependants to very special cases, for the senior and post-graduate students.
Among Commonwealth immigrants there will always be those who, for one reason or another, wish to return to their country of origin. If any of our immigrants and their dependants wish to go back and are in difficulties in finding the money for their passages, I believe that we should he prepared to help with the fares. This is nothing new. Seven to 8 percent. of our own countrymen who emigrate to Australia come back because they find that the conditions there are different from what they expected. They are helped by the Australian Government to return here if necessary.
Before leaving the subject of controls, I should like to make one other point. I am sure that, in tightening up existing controls and perhaps introducing new ones, we should like to see the Government retaining enough flexibility to be able to meet special needs. There

are special skills which we require from outside and there are special cases in which we need, and ought to be able, to help, and sometimes at very short notice.

Mr. Chapman: We can produce them.

Sir G. Sinclair: I said that I believed that there are special cases for which we ought to provide. Every responsible administrator would agree with that.
There are also some other problems with our small remaining dependencies which wish to remain close to Britain. I believe that they should have special consideration. Gibraltar is obviously a case in point.
I should like now to turn to the perhaps rather more congenial problem of adjustment. The most important contribution to adjustment which we can make is to ensure that immigrants are given equal opportunities with others to make the best use of their talents. This is absolutely basic. This is part of making the best use of our manpower and giving people the right to enjoy their talents, both in the interests of our own economy and of the immigrants own satisfaction in their work. We have heard, during the debate, some of the outstanding work done by the National Advisory Committee on Commonwealth Immigration, chaired by Lady Reading, by local authorities, local consultative committees, the Churches, independent organisations, voluntary bodies and individuals, work which is done to help with this problem of adjustment.
I should like to join in those tributes and to pay a special one to the Institute of Race Relations and its staff, who have done invaluable work in gathering and assessing facts, and putting out guideposts on which public action can be based.
All who have spoken in the debate well understand that whatever we may say here, and whatever action the central Government may take to help the process of adjustment, the main task lies with the local authorities—I know that many are helped by Members of Parliament—and with those who work and live in areas of the greatest immigrant settlement. There are four ways in which we can help. I wrote about them recently, but I will touch on them briefly now.
They are housing, health, education, and equal treatment. The subject of housing has been well covered during the debate. Hon. Members on this side of the House are strongly in favour of additional help from the central Government to local authorities to enable them to tackle their general housing problems without discrimination or favour to any particular community.
On health we are in favour of sending medical teams from this country to the countries of origin of the immigrants to do thorough medical checks there before the immigrants come to this country. I know that there are difficulties about doing that in this country, when people have already arrived. There are difficulties in checking and in keeping track.
There are two important points which I should like to make on education. One is that education in our own schools is the best possible opportunity that we can give the immigrant children to adjust themselves to take a full part in our community. That will not be done if the schools are peopled largely by immigrants. There must be a preponderance of our own people in every school. We must aim at achieving that for the sake of the immigrants. The other thing for which we ask is great attention to be given to the teaching of English. I have set out these ideas rather more fully in the Press. There is room for research in this matter. We hope that the Government will be able to persuade the universities to play a full part.
The last problem is perhaps the most difficult, that of equal treatment. I understand that, in a debate on the Motion for the Adjournment, we are precluded from discussing Bills in prospect, but I hope that, if a Bill is introduced, one of the main provisions will be for statutory conciliation machinery to deal with any cases of infringement by conciliation, allowing them to go to the courts only as a last resort.
By and large, I think it most difficult for immigrants to get employment in the middle sector. They get into the professions and into unskilled and semi-skilled employment. It is in the middle sector that the progress is slowest and resistance to the employment of immigrants is often highest. Reasonable access to these

middle ranges of employment by way of apprenticeship and training schemes and to opportunities for promotion are of the greatest importance to a great number of our immigrants. We hope that the Minister of Labour will look into this matter. I am sure that, in this matter, he will need the help of the trade unions and of management in industry.
I should like to make a final point about fair treatment. There are various spheres in which discrimination against coloured immigrants is claimed to be widespread. Some have been mentioned in the debate. In respect of insurance, housing mortgages, rent and housing generally, immigrants claim that they have to pay a sort of colour tax. Surely the first job is to get the facts and to air them in public and then let us get on with the remedies.
It has been a privilege to take part in a debate on a subject of such great moment, not only to the people of this country but also to the people of the Commonwealth. I have omitted to mention in detail the various contributions made by other hon. Members who have raised the standard of this debate to the heights that it has reached. I ask forgiveness of them. It has been a great privilege to wind up this debate on behalf of the Opposition and I welcome particularly the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, who is known to have such a careful and humane approach to these problems, will now wind up for the Government.

9.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): The debate has been wound up for the Opposition in a most interesting and informative speech by the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), and it behoves me, speaking from the Government Front Bench, to welcome him on this his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench.
The House is apt to feel slightly selfconscious when we terminate a debate in too self-congratulatory a mood. Perhaps I may venture to do so, because at least I as the last speaker run no risk whatever of being congratulated, even if I deserve it, which I am sure I will not. But, having been in the House for nearly


20 years, I cannot often remember a debate of which one can say with complete lack of reserve that every speaker has made his own distinctive and valuable contribution to our thinking on this broad social problem with which we as a nation are now confronted.
Nobody suggests that the Opposition should in any way be inhibited in future from their complete right of criticism of the Government"s policy. Nevertheless, there has been disclosed in the course of the debate a very great degree of unanimity on the broad aspects of the problem with which we are faced. We can divide it into two separate aspects, and I will make it my task, in reply to the debate, to state the Government"s policy on the various aspects which have been canvassed.
First is the question of numbers, and the Government accept that there must be—simply because of the scale of possible immigration—effective control of numbers. That we have said, and it is broadly accepted in all parts of the House and throughout the country. Second is the more interesting and constructive approach to the problem, which is how to make the new citizens of the country feel completely at home among us.
Some hon. Members have said that we cannot expect immigrants from other countries, with their different cultures, to forswear their traditions, religions and cultures and merge completely into our community. Others have said that they should simply be as everybody else. The common factor in our thinking is that people wish to retain their own habits, beliefs and individual sphere of choice but that what we want to achieve by our social policies in our approach to the problem is that there should be no suspicion whatever that there is any difference in treatment between one person and another.
The thing which we absolutely abjure and abhor is the idea that there should be first and second-class citizens. Whatever our individual method of approach, our aim should be to see that there is only one class of citizen, each with equal rights, each with equal respect, each with equal opportunity and each with an equal career of happiness and fulfilment in his life in

the community. We all agree that we should aim that.
That being our common objective, to achieve it co-operation among a great many Departments, local authorities, voluntary associations and an enormous amount of goodwill from individuals is indispensable. Acts of Parliament cannot do it. Tolerance and goodwill can play by far the biggest part. No Department, by its individual policy—in housing, education, health or the social services—can achieve it. All must co-operate, and they must be assisted by the trade unions, who have been mentioned, by voluntary associations, by the Churches and by individual persons who possess a fund of determined good will to see that they achieve their objective.
Therefore, the Government"s policy has been this: as this is such a widespread responsibility we have thought it right, as the Prime Minister announced, that there should be a co-ordinating Committee to bring all that effort together into one single endeavour. That is why my hon. Friend who has been congratulated on having been invited to undertake this task has been here all day listening with such avidity to the extremely valuable proposals that have been made with regard to improving the housing position and generally to bringing to an end any semblance of discrimination in the factual sense between the immigrant community and the indigenous community within our shores. That is the Government"s first line of approach. There must be adequate co-ordination, and there must be a Minister whose task it is to see that every field of endeavour is brought together so as to achieve the objective. I put that before the House as being an extremely important aspect of the Government"s approach to this matter.
Secondly, on the question of figures, I have listened carefully to the whole of this debate and have sought to pick out those positive proposals on what practical steps the Government should take. It has been said by some hon. Members that we must drastically curtail the numbers, though I do not think anybody has gone so far as to say that we must completely suspend immigration. I would like to spend a few moments considering what drastic curtailment of the numbers involves. In order to get hold of the measure of the problem one should have


certain figures in mind. It has been said that the number of coloured immigrants at the moment in this country is round about the 800,000 mark; it may be more and is sometimes said to be nearer 1 million. The Leader of the House was asked how many dependants there were still in overseas countries who, under Section 2 of the Commonwealth Immigration 1962, were entitled as a matter of right to come to these shores in order to join their husbands or fathers. He gave a very tentative figure. It must be very tentative because, of course, it is impossible to estimate except in broad terms. It may be not less than ½ million.

Sir C. Osborne: This is a very important figure. I believe the right hon. Gentleman said it was not less than ½million.

Sir F. Soskice: I believe the actual words used by my right hon. Friend were "may be as high as", but it is impossible to give anything except the most vague estimate. We have tried to assess the figure, but of necessity if one considers the problem only the vaguest estimate is possible. But, roughly speaking, if one assumes that this is the kind of figure with which we have to deal, it is a working basis on which we can proceed.
Starting from that, it may be useful to consider what is meant by a curtailment of the figures by comparing the figures for 1963 and 1964. As the House knows, the 1962 Act began to operate in July 1962, so that we have two complete years —1963 and 1964—by reference to which we can test the figures. We have tried to estimate the increase to our population from immigration by taking what we call the "net intake", calculating for each of the two years 1963 and 1964 by how much the total of those who have arrived at our shores exceeded the total of those who have left.
We call that, for the sake of convenience, the net intake. In 1963—and I am speaking in round figures of 1,000—it was 57,000, and in 1964 it was 62,000. That is a very rough estimate, because the student, for example, may come in 1963 and leave in 1967. That is the best estimate we can give. If one tests against that net intake, if I may so put it, how many immigrants from Commonwealth countries were admitted on a permanent basis, one gets some measure of the problem, and by doing that one can get some measure

of the scope by which one can, if one wishes to do so, reduce the numbers.
In 1963, as I have said, the net intake was 57,000, and 29,000 A, B and C voucher holders were admitted for permanent settlement. Apart from that, 27,000, who were mainly dependants, were also admitted for permanent settlement. Therefore, broadly speaking, the net intake in 1963 was some thousand or so more than the numbers admitted for permanent settlement. That was the figure in 1963. I would call attention to the figure of 27,000 dependants. When one contrasts that with 1964—and, as I have told the House, the net intake for 1964 was 62,000—voucher holders had dropped in 1964 from 29,000 to 14,000—they were under half—but the dependants had gone up from 27,000 in 1963 to nearly 39,000 in 1964.
Broadly speaking, if we look at the scheme of the 1962 Act, those who are admitted on a permanent settlement basis owe voucher holders and their dependants—I leave out of account for the moment returning residents, and I leave out of account some other categories, but, broadly speaking, those are the relevant figures.
I think that nearly every hon. and right hon. Member who has spoken today has said that one cannot, in a civilised country, say to people whom one affects to treat as fellow citizens with oneself, "You are not to bring your wives and families here". It would be inhuman to do so. It is in the public interest, as well as in his own interest, that if a man has come here and settled here and has a claim to be regarded as a citizen here, and if we really mean with any sincerity that we propose to treat him as such, that we should not say to him, "Your wife is in Karachi —she shall stay in Karachi", or "Your children under 16 are in the West Indies —they must stay there". It is a matter of common humanity and elementary decency, to say, "If you are settled here and are one of our fellow citizens you certainly have the right, as the Act says you have the right, to bring here your wife and your children" or, at least "your children under 16".
My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), and I since I have filled the office of Home Secretary, have followed the practice of


not being too strict in our adherence to Section 2 of the Act. We have admitted dependants here who were not wives or children under 16. We have gone a little outside Section 2, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, for reasons, I think, of absolutely compelling humanity. We have said that if an old and aging father wished to join his son here he should be allowed to do so.
There has been a discretionary basis on which we have allowed some other members of a family to come here, and I am sure that no hon. Member would wish to say that we were wrong, or would wish us, as a result, to curtail these discretionary admissions. I am sure that if I had to curtail on an absolutely inhuman basis I could reduce the numbers only by about 3,000 a year, and I certainly would not wish to keep an ageing father or mother away from their son here. Therefore, I would hope that the House would think that, at any rate as to that 39,000, there is no possibility of reduction.
Then where is the possibility of reduction? It is, first, by reducing the number of evasions. I accept that at once. Comparing the total number admitted on a permanent settlement basis in 1964 with the total net intake—that is, the 62,000 net intake with the 52,000 or 53,000 admitted as voucher holders, dependants, and so on—there is an unaccounted surplus of some 10,000. We assume—this is the only way we can get at the figure—that as to a considerable proportion of that unaccounted surplus it must be evasions—students who stayed, visitors who stayed on and prolonged their visit to an inordinately long degree, persons who came on forged passports or other false pretences. They would probably be included in that 10,000.
The Government accept that those must be stopped. Nobody sympathises with those who obtain entry here by fraud, if for no other reason than that it is extremely unfair on the other unfortunate immigrants who wait their turn. Therefore, we accept that we must try to stop those. On 4th February I announced measures designed to deal with these people. The 62,000 must be reduced by the elimination of those persons, so far as we can do so. When I

made my Statement, I made it clear that I wished to see what the numerical result of that would be over a period of time before I considered whether fresh measures were necessary.
Fresh measures would be very drastic and unpleasant measures. They would be measures which involved registration with the police. They would be measures which involved my being given a power of deportation without a court order, which I have not now got. I say "my"; I mean, as the House will understand, the Home Secretary of the day being given the power of deportation without an order by a court, which I at present have not got. If the Government were to ask the House to give the Home Secretary such powers, he would have to apply them in the case of immigrants from the older Commonwealth countries—against Australians, against Canadians, against New Zealanders, against all members of the old Commonwealth countries as well as against the new. They would have to be operated against the visitors and students from those countries with complete impartiality.
Obviously one has to state the problem, and do no more than state the problem, to induce, I hope, assent from the House as a whole that any Home Secretary in any Government would be reluctant to feel that he had to ask the House for such powers. At the moment I have announced on behalf of the Government measures to tighten up the existing control. I hope that the House will think that the Government are acting rightly in waiting to see what the effect of this tightening up is in terms of numbers before contemplating any other measures which would be inherently repugnant to the whole concept of the Commonwealth.
After all, the Commonwealth is a real and valuable thing. It consists of 750 million people of different races belonging to huge, large, small, tiny countries, all gathered together in a voluntary association. That is a tradition, as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) reminded us, which we should not lightly cast aside. It is a tremendous association of free peoples in the interests of peace. In my belief, it has a greater influence for peace than the United Nations itself. It has grown over the


years. It has not been imposed or created; it has developed by common consent. It is an association of peoples of all races, all colours, all outlooks, which is capable of inestimable good in the future of the world. I am sure that the House will agree with me that I have not overstated the position.
Therefore, where is the room for the drastic reduction? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) gave the House what I thought was an extremely valuable analysis of the figures. We could reduce the number of vouchers. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is considering his whole system of issuing vouchers. Fourteen thousand voucher holders arrived in the whole of 1964. Could we cut down on those? If we cut down on those, would it make any significant reduction in the intake of immigrants?
My hon. Friend looked at the figures from 1963 to 1964. I should like to supplement that by looking at the figures of 1964. I ask the House to consider the 8,000 B vouchers issued. They in-cluded about 2,000 teachers, 400 nurses, 1,700 doctors, 2,200 other graduates and professions, 38 craftsmen, 500 building workers and 800 shorthand typists. In any case, the doctors to a considerable extent go home after they have served here for a number of years. Some come here and settle but many go back to their own countries after serving several years in our own National Health Service. We shall lose a good many of them and it is good that we should lose them because they are capable of doing great good in their own countries. Their own countries cannot easily afford to export them to us. We enjoy their services when they are here but they can render valuable services in their own countries at the end of their professional careers here.
The rate of unemployment among immigrants as a whole is something like 2.4 percent. now. It has been pointed out over and over again in debate that they render invaluable service to our National Health Service, the transport system and various branches of our economy. That is the position at the moment.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that if he wants more powers to stop evasion we shall be very slow to object to it from this side of the House? We regard it as absolutely vital that these powers be properly enforced. Surely the one thing that is clear from listening to the figures which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given is that we must take a large number of relatives, in any event, and that they are the natural consequence of the admission of the male immigrant worker. In those circumstances, surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman must ponder very carefully on any case where he gives new authority for more male immigrant workers. He may make out a case for 14,000. He may say that that is a very small number, but if one takes 14,000 plus another 5,000 evasions, with their relatives, it mounts very quickly to 60,000 a year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman this question? I will be quicker if I am not interrupted. Is he really contending to the House of Commons that this economy is hanging on the flow into this country of 14,000 immigrant workers?

Sir F. Soskice: I counter that by the question: is our economy really likely to be very much affected and our immigration intake so completely altered by our forgoing the services of some 14,000 people who are useful to us? If it were a question of reducing the 62,000 net intake to 6,000 net intake, that would be one thing. But if one accepts, as one must, that dependents may come in, that the 14,000 are extremely useful to us, and that a great many of them will go back in any event, one is really discussing such small figures that one is neither helping us nor helping them. If we simply say, "For the sake of reducing the figures, we shall cut off that 14,000", we reduce it to what?—no more doctors, no more nurses——

Mr. Thorneycroft: Four hundred nurses.

Sir F. Soskice: The 8,000 people with B vouchers are all extremely useful people. When the right hon. Gentleman refers to evasion, I am with him. Evasion must be stopped. But I am reluctant, and I hope he will agree that


I am right to be reluctant, to ask the House to give me the sort of powers which I have been outlining. To take the example of Australians coming here to visit, they would be required to register. They would not like it. Other people would not like it any more than the coloured immigrants would like it. It is contrary to our whole tradition which we have practised with pride for so long of regarding the flow between Commonwealth countries as something free and unfettered at least so far as we are concerned.
That is a tradition which we should hesitate very much to interrupt. We have had to interrupt it for the purposes of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. That is now accepted and we are not in controversy about it. To go further would be to do something which we should be most reluctant toy contemplate. If it must be done, in due course we shall have to consider it. All I am saying is that, at the moment, the Government"s view is that we have introduced stringent measures which we believe will be effective. They often produce unkind results, of course. People who had hoped to be able to come here are told that they have to go back. In itself, this is a harsh thing to do in any case, but, if it must be done in the case of evasion or dishonesty of some sort, it must be done and we accept it.
But we want to see the result of our actions before we even contemplate harsher measures still which would be thoroughly repugnant to both the newer Commonwealth countries and the older Commonwealth countries. That is the Government"s view about it, and those are my comments on the Government"s policy on the question of numbers.

Sir C. Osborne: How many immigrant does the right hon. and learned Gentleman estimate that the 500,000 dependants cover? How many dependants has each immigrant got?

Sir F. Soskice: I wish I had longer to explain, but may I say, in a few words, that what we have tried to do is to look at the 800,000 here and estimate what percentage of them are likely still to have dependants overseas. That is, so to

speak, a shorthand answer which I hope the hon. Gentleman will be content with because I wish to turn to the other aspects of our policy before I conclude.
First, the mission led by Lord Mountbatten. We take the view that, as the Commonwealth is such a living entity to us, we ought to have the reactions of Commonwealth countries to any broad steps which we might propose for dealing with immigration. It is a domestic matter for us to decide in the long run, of course, but we feel that great utility is to be achieved by a mission of persons led by Lord Mountbatten, with his very high standing and authority throughout the Commonwealth, to find out the facts and see what is possible.
Finally, a few words about the Bill which we propose to introduce and which has been frequently referred to today. I cannot, of course, discuss the details of coming legislation, but I should like to make a few observations about it. One of my hon. Friends—I forget who it was—reminded us that children do not have these antagonisms towards one and another. Anyone can see children playing perfectly happily together, never mind the colour of their skins. It is when they grow older that they may come into contact with sinister influences which breed prejudice and the possibility of racial hate or dislike. We want to get in first and stop, so far as we can, their being subjected to these unpleasant and anti-social influences.
We could leave a Measure of this sort until such racial antagonisms as might develop had developed and then try to come in when it was too late to stop the evil which was already rampant. We think that that would be the wrong policy. We want to get in first and make sure that, so far as legislation can, we do something about it. I quite agree with the right hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) that men"s hearts are not changed by legislation. But they can be prevented from embarking upon a course of conduct which influences other people"s hearts in the wrong direction. That is what we want to do with our legislation.
That completes my brief run-through of Government policy. I hope that the House will think that it is a constructive policy. This is a problem which evolves. It changes from time to time and also has


to adjust itself, just as our points of view have to adjust themselves. I could spend much longer going into much more detailed analysis of the figures but time is short and that brings me to the end of my remarks, concluding what has been a really valuable debate on a subject which closely affects all of us—namely, the one-fiftieth of the population of this country who are our fellow citizens.

Mr. Brian O'Malley (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Lords Amendments to the Superannuation (Amendment) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day"s Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. O"Malley.]

Orders of the Day — SUPERANNUATION (AMENDMENT) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Orders of the Day — Clause 5.—(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 11, after "1948" insert
the County Courts Act, 1924, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, the County Courts Act, 1934.

10.1 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consider, at the same time, the fourth and fifth Amendments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I have no objection, unless hon. Members have.

Mr. MacDermot: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
These Amendments are intended to clarify the law governing the superannuation of certain superior officers of the Supreme and county courts with the object of consolidation and also making two minor improvements in the law. I

should apologise to the House for having to bring these matters before it at this late hour but they were matters in this highly technical Bill which, I am afraid, were overlooked at an earlier stage. Fortunately, they were discovered in time and, if the House agrees, the Amendments will make easier the consolidation Bill which will be laid before the House in this Session.
The people concerned are the masters and registrars and certain other high officials of the Supreme Court and the registrars of the county and other courts. The superannuation position of these people is governed by earlier Acts of 1924, 1925 and 1934 which, in general, apply the provisions of the Superannuation Acts to them, with certain prescribed modifications.
The most important modification is that the pension accrues at a much higher rate and full pension is earned in 20 years instead of 40. That, of course, is because most of them are, as it were, late entrants. Since those Acts were passed, there have been no less than five other Superannuation Acts, beginning with the 1935 Act, and now we have this Bill.
The question requiring clarification is which of the provisions of these later Acts apply and which do not apply to these persons. The point has been obscure for some time but without, fortunately, causing any practical trouble. It has, as it were, been a theoretical difficulty. But, now that consolidation is to take place, it is necessary that the ambiguity should be cleared up.
The Amendments do two things and deal with two matters. First is that, in the case of some of these officers—those covered by the 1925 Act—it is possible, though not certain, that some of the provisions of the later Acts apply to them when it is inappropriate that they should do so.
For example, in the 1946 Act, there is a provision which sets out the added years to count towards pension for late entrants. This is obviously inappropriate for these people, because there is already a special modification, as I have said, which give them full pension after 20 years and which is designed to achieve the same purpose. It would obviously not be right to accelerate the rate of accruing for them still further.
The other object of the Amendments is to make two minor amendments of the law applying to these officers which deals with two provisions which certainly do not apply in some cases and may not in others and which obviously should apply. The effect of the Amendment would be to allow any of these officers who married after having retired, but before the age of 70, to allocate part of the pension to the benefit of the wife or husband.
The second provision is to make these officers eligible for the special benefits which apply to civil servants who are injured on duty, or to their dependants. I think that the House would agree that both provisions ought to apply to these officers and the Amendments will achieve that effect.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: We have gone a long way since the Bill originally came before the House and when the Financial Secretary and I had the privilege of being on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill about last November. The Bill started then by being mainly for the Diplomatic Service, following the Plowden Report which hon. Members on both sides of the House welcomed; but in the four months that it has been away the Bill has gone the rounds of Departments who have produced some Amendments, in the House, in Standing Committee and in another place, which should clear up details for some time to come.
The Amendments to Clauses 5 to 7 are not applicable to the Diplomatic Service. I have taken note to the best of my ability of what was said in another place, which I know I cannot quote, but I understand that these Amendments apply to legal office holders who are not civil servants but who, for superannuation purposes, have always been treated as such. I am not sure why, but I am sure that there is no objection.
I am not certain whether the advantages which the Financial Secretary said that they used to enjoy and which will be taken away from them—of a higher rate and getting a pension after the full period of 20 years instead of the usual 40—do not have certain disadvantages. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the point has been obscure for some time without

causing any practical difficulties, because the provisions have not been applied in practice.
However, this went through another place in the dead of the afternoon and there was no resistance among those who were present. Can I have an assurance that as the grant of added years, which would count towards pension, is now said to be inappropriate, that view will not deter certain late entrants from seeking office? As I said in Standing Committee, I have a great regard for the Treasury as the guardian of what is still worth something—the money of this country—but, at the same time, one wants to be careful that discretion is not removed from Departments if there is an individual who might he attracted under the circumstances as they now stand but who would be deterred by the tightening up of these provisions. There is a need for flexibility about recruiting late entrants in such special occupations as those under consideration.
My second question is whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied that all Departments have had full time in the four months to consider all means of further amendment of their superannuation legislation. An enormous amount is contained in the original Measure which one has not had time to go through in detail. Departments must have got down to some fair detail because the officers who marry after having retired but before the age of 70 must be a fairly small category, and I am sure that the House welcomes the opportunity given to them to allocate part of their pension for the benefit of wives or husbands.
I am not certain about what is meant when the hon. and learned Gentleman says that these officers are made eligible for the special benefits which apply to civil servants who are injured on duty. Would that apply to those civil servants who marry between retirement and the age of 70 and what duty are they likely to be injured on? Perhaps I misunderstood, but the point is whether he is satisfied that all Departments have now met all possible needs for amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: With your leave, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker). He


asked about the special benefits. These are special benefits which apply to civil servants who are injured during their work. It may be a matter of a person falling downstairs and receiving personal injuries. It may be a much more serious matter of somebody flying abroad on duty and being involved in an air crash and perhaps being killed, and the rights of dependants. I suppose that high judicial officers are liable to these risks as much as anyone else, and it is intended that they should enjoy and be entitled to the same benefits as civil servants. That is the object of the provision—to make it clear, where it is not clear, that they are entitled to these benefits.
The hon. Gentleman asked why they were not civil servants, but were merely treated as civil servants. The answer to that is, I think, obvious. It is to preserve clearly the independent status of the judiciary. These officers are part of or servants of the judiciary.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to give an assurance that we have detected all the defects in this complex maze of legislation prior to consolidation. I think that I should be a rash man—and Treasury Ministers notoriously are not rash—if I were to assert positively that we had discovered all the knots before we sought to present an untangled bundle before the House in the form of a consolidating Statute. All I can say is that I devoutly hope that we have. I am filled with admiration—and I think that I detected that the hon. Gentleman was—for the way in which those who have prepared the Bill have obviously scrutinised this very complicated series of Acts with the utmost care to try to find any wrinkles which need to be smoothed out before we can consolidate. I very much hope that we have achieved that.

Mr. Graham Page: I think that there is one question which has not been cleared up. I cannot claim the intimacy with the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) and the Financial Secretary can claim and I may have missed the point. By subsection (2) of the Amendment in page 21, line 14, which proposes to introduce paragraph 24 into the Schedule, we seem to be depriving these officers of something. If I understand the matter correctly. Section 41 of the

Superannuation Act, 1949, dealt with gratuities and allowances to these officers who are injured or contract diseases in the discharge of their duty.
Section 41(3), which is referred to in subsection (2) of the proposed paragraph 24, provided that an allowance granted for injury or disease should not exceed five-sixths of the annual salary. In calculating that five-sixths we are told to add a lump sum which may have been granted to the officer under the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950. I gather that that lump sum is given on retirement, being twice the annual amount of pension and a gratuity to which the officer is entitled on retirement. But now we have to add that to his other allowance and say that those two sums must not exceed five-sixths of the annual salary. It seems that we are depriving the officer of something.
The Financial Secretary gave the impression that these Amendments were all granting something to the superannuitant. I think that in this case we are taking something away, if I read it correctly, and I wonder whether with the leave of the House, the hon. Gentleman can answer that question for me.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: With the leave of the House, I shall try to do so.
The object of sub-paragraph (2) is to put these officials in the same position as civil servants. It is not to make them any better off or worse off than civil servants. As the hon. Gentleman said, Section 41(3) limits the amount of the special benefits for injuries. These benefits may not, when taken together with the officers" own superannuation allowance, and the annuity value of his additional allowance, that is the lump sum, exceed five-sixths of his salary, and any reduction of the additional allowance for the purpose of providing contributions towards the Widows and Children"s Pension Scheme under Parts I and II of the 1949 Act has to be ignored in this calculation.
This limitation cannot apply, as the law stands at present, to the 1925 Act officers, since they are excluded from the definition of superannuation allowance. If Section 41 already applies to them, it gives them too much, and, moreover, apart from the question of definition, the limiting provision has to be translated to


make it applicable both to the 1925 officers and to the other officers concerned.
They do not receive an additional allowance, but a lump sum under the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act 1950, and so what this subparagraph does is to provide that the reference to an additional allowance shall include a reference to a lump sum under the 1950 Act, and that the reference to a reduction under Parts I and II of the Act of 1947 shall include a reference to a reduction under Section 8 of the 1950 Act.
I think that the effect of it is that in making clear that this section applies to these officers it does it in a way which will give them the same benefits as civil servants, and not entitle them to a greater sum.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that as the law stood they were getting too much. I understand from that that it is his desire to deprive them of something to which they would be entitled as the law stands at the moment. It may be right to do so, but I wanted that clearly on the record.

Mr. MacDermot: If I understand it rightly, I think the position is that as the law stands the Section does not apply to them, but, when we apply it to them, we need to apply it with modification, or they will get too much.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2.—(AMENDMENTS OF SUPER-ANNUATION ACTS AND OF OTHER PENSION ACTS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 45, at end insert:

"Reckoning of service of former teachers

1946 c. 60.
8. In section 6(2) of the Superannuation Act 1946 (which provides that, in the case of a civil servant who was formerly a teacher, certain service as a teacher shall be treated as if it were service as a civil servant)—



(a) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—



`(b) service which is recorded as first class service under regulations made under section 101

1946c.72.
of the Education (Scotland) Act1946 (as substituted by section


1956c. 75.
10 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1956) or section 102 of the


1962c. 47.
Education (Scotland) Act 1962 or any amendment thereof (hereinafter referred to as "the Scottish Regulations"); or";



(b) in paragraph (c), for the words the Scottish Teachers Scheme" there shall be substituted the words the Scottish Regulations";



(c) in the proviso—



(i) for the words "subsection (2) of Article 14 of the Scottish Teachers Scheme" there shall be substituted the words "the Scottish Regulations";



(ii) for the words "be cancelled in the record of service maintained under the Scottish Teachers Scheme" there shall be substituted the words "or in reckoning periods of first class service under the Scottish Regulations"."

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The new paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 proposed in the Amendment, corrects, again in the interests of consolidation, an anomaly which has arisen accidentally over the qualifying, for the purpose of civil service pension, of previous service as a teacher in Scotland. Fortunately, either by accident, or for a lack of normal Scottish astuteness, no one has appreciated this anomaly so as to benefit from it in practice, but it has been detected now, and we would like, with the agreement of the House, to put the matter right before consolidation.
This is rather technical. Section 6(2) of the 1946 Act lists the kinds of teaching service which may qualify for purposes of pension. It includes
service which is recorded under the scheme framed and approved under the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Acts 1919–39, and any Act amending the same (hereinafter referred to as the Scottish Teachers Scheme")".
At the time when the 1946 Act was passed only contributing service as a Scottish teacher was recorded, but since then subsequent legislation, and regulations made under it, have added to contributing service another class of service which is non-contributing. The noncontributing service is second- and third-class service and the contributing service


is firsts-class service. The new regulations also did away with the phraseology of the Scottish Teachers Scheme.
These changes went unnoticed at the time, and have not been paralleled under the change in the Superannuation Act. The result is that now, contrary to the intention of the 1946 Act, not only contributing service but non-contributing service as a Scottish teacher may qualify. This would plainly be wrong, because such non-contributing service may, for example, be in outside employment and it is recorded merely for the purpose of keeping previous contributing service eligible for pension for a person who returned from it to teaching, but there is no reason why it should itself qualify for a Civil Service pension.
No practical problem has arisen to date, but it is obviously desirable to get this hit of the law right before consolidation.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I rise with some diffidence. I remember once trying to catch the eye of the Chair, when its occupant came from north of the Border, in connection with a Bill dealing with red deer. The Bill is applicable to Scottish teachers, and for a Sassanach to talk about it is a risk. However, when the Bill went to another place they managed to dig out a certain number of benefits which accrued to those north of the Border, including an individual who has the intimidating title of the Falkland Macer. I do not think that he comes within the terms of the Amendment.
The hon. and learned Member said that no practical problem has arisen over this provision, but it is clearly right to put the matter beyond doubt. I have done my best to study the Amendment and the remarks made elsewhere about it, and I should like to ask one question. If a Scottish teacher who has been teaching either abroad or at home takes up other employment outside teaching and then comes back to teaching, I presume that his superannuation contributions will be paid by his temporary employer and he will not have lost his place on the ladder by undertaking outside employment.
This is an important point, because many hon. Members on both sides of

the House have tried in the past to encourage not only the secondment of individual teachers to employment elsewhere, but also their undertaking for a short period employment outside teaching, which may be of considerable value to them and also to the other form of employment. It would be a pity if, under these provisions, individual teachers who had been attracted into outside employment found on their return to the teaching profession that they had lost by it. I should like an assurance by the Minister that there is no conflict here with what has been the practice in the last few years.

Mr. Graham Page: The Financial Secretary said that no practical problem had arisen over this point. I am not sure what he meant by that. He may have meant that a teacher had claimed to count in non-contributing service and had received the pension through it, and that no problem had arisen in giving the pension. Can he assure us that there is no one now enjoying a pension by reason of non-contributing employment? If there is someone enjoying it, it seems grossly unfair if we are depriving him of that pension halfway through his enjoyment of it. I presume that by "no practical problem" the Financial Secretary meant that no one had ever claimed this, that no one is gettting a pension under this score and that we are now doing no harm by removing it from the Bill.

Mr. MacDermot: I confirm that that is what I meant by saying that there had not been a practical problem.
On the first point which was raised, I think that the point to make clear is that what we are concerned with here is Civil Service pension and not teachers" pension. I cannot say what the provisions are for Scottish teachers as far as the teachers" pension is concerned. What we are concerned with is the qualifying, for the purposes of a Civil Service pension, of previous service as a teacher in Scotland. It is for that purpose that what the Amendment now does is to limit service which may qualify, first-class service, that is to say, to contributory service.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 38, at end insert:
17. In proviso (ii) to section 36(1) of the Superannuation Act 1949 (which refers to what would have been the retiring age for a civil servant if he had continued in the employment in which he was when he was last a civil servant) the reference to that retiring age shall be construed on the assumption that in continuing in that employment he would have been employed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment proposes a new paragraph 17 in the Second Schedule, and is designed to remove a possible doubt affecting the retiring age of persons who serve in unhealthy climates abroad. Again, like most of these provisions, it is a little complicated. Section 36(1) of the 1949 Act applies to circumstances in which a person who has left the Civil Service with a pension may be reemployed, and, on re-employment, earn additional pension. One of the conditions is that it is only service after reaching the retiring age which can count towards the addition. For example, if he is re-employed at 58 and his retiring age is 60, he must wait until he is 60 before the additional service begins to count towards the additional pension.
The possible doubt arises in this way. By the second proviso of the Section, it is provided that no one shall begin reemployed service before he attains the age which would have been the retiring age for him if he had continued in the employment in which he was when he was last a civil servant. When this is applied to people to whom section 42 of the 1949 Act arises, there is this difficulty. That Section allows service in certain unhealthy climates, known as the scheduled territories, to count as time and a half for pension. It also allows the retiring age to be reduced by three months for each completed year of service under the Section.
A man who served in the scheduled territories and had retired before reaching his retiring age, as reduced under the Section—for example, due to ill-health—might later be re-employed in the United Kingdom, again before reaching his retiring age. He might then ingeniously claim that if he had continued to serve instead of retiring because of ill-health, his employment would have been in a scheduled territory, and that, as a result,

he would have earned a further reduction in his retiring age, and his additional service ought therefore to begin to count, not from his actual retiring age—that is, 60 less the reduction he had already earned—but from the age which would have been his retiring age if he had continued to serve throughout in a scheduled territory
If such a claim were made and conceded he would then be able to start counting his re-employed service at, say, 58 instead of 59, and so retire on his maximum pension a year earlier than he should. This point has already been dealt with in the Bill in two other places where a similar doubt has arisen, in Clause I and in paragraphs 4 and 15 of the Second Schedule. Its application to Section 36 was not noticed before. As I say, it is desirable to put the matter right since the point is covered in other Clauses. The doubt might be reinforced if the point is not also covered here.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Before calling the next speaker, I have a general observation to make. In these more intimate debates, when there are few hon. Members present, some hon. and right hon. Members are slipping into the habit of talking very quietly, which makes it rather difficult for the Official Reporters to hear them.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As the Minister said, this is a fairly complicated point. Indeed, I would say that it is the most complicated and narrowest of the three matters we have so far discussed. The matter is not made easier by the fact that there were some misprints in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in another place on 9th March, in lines 10 and 15 of column 18.
As I see it, if an individual retires before the age of 60—say, at 55—because he has been working in an unhealthy territory or territories, and if he is asked to serve for some special reason, say at the age of 57, no additional pension will accrue for that special employment until he is 60. I am sure that the number of individuals covered by the Clause cannot be very great.
This brings me back to the point I raised on the first Amendment; it seems that it would be a pity if Departments were deprived by the Treasury—and nobody has more respect for the Treasury than I have—and by this ruling from


employing somebody who says, "It is not worth my taking on this special work because I get no pension for it. On the couple of years here I will not be able to add to my pension. I had better seek employment elsewhere".
I again ask the Minister to tell us whether this does not—perhaps accidentally but, nevertheless, obviously—deprive Departments from a discretion which existed before. I would consider it a pity if this discretion were removed, because the number of people concerned is small.
Incidentally, having spent quite a lot of time looking through the Bill and a number of years living in what people would probably call an unhealthy climate, perhaps it is time that the Treasury had a look at the possibility of adding Whitehall to the list of scheduled territories.

Mr. Graham Page: The example which the Financial Secretary gave was of a civil servant who, through ill-health, retired from service overseas and then, before his United Kingdom retiring age was reached, was re-employed in the United Kingdom. I understand that in such cases people would take as their retiring age the age at which they would have retired had they served all the time in the United Kingdom, but is it not possible that the civil servant instanced by the Minister might be re-employed overseas, in the same country? Suppose that at, say, 40 he became ill and recovered in a couple of years sufficiently to take on his job again overseas.
As I read the Amendment, it states:
… reference to that retiring age shall be construed on the assumption"—
and I emphasise the words "on the assumption"—
that in continuing in that employment he would have been employed in the United Kingdom.
That is not that he was employed, but that we must assume that if he is re-employed overseas it is assumed that he is employed in the United Kingdom. I cannot think that that is fair.
The Fnancial Secretary said that this occurs in other places in the Bill and I pointed out that I was not as intimate with the Measure as he and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) were. I am sorry if it occurs elsewhere. I cannot think that it is treating a man fairly to say that if

he goes back to his employment overseas he must be assumed to have a retiring age as the age which he would have been had he been re-employed in the United Kingdom.

Mr. MacDermot: To reply to the second point first, I do not think that any injustice would be caused to the man who, in the circumstances envisaged, was re-employed in the scheduled territories. He would be able once again to start earning the reduction, as it were, in his retiring age by his further service abroad. In the passage which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) read, the word that needs emphasising is "that", in
… the reference to that retiring age …
which shall be assumed.
It does not mean his finally determined retiring age, but the retiring age referred to in brackets, namely, what would have been the retiring age for the civil servant had he continued with the employment in which he was when last a civil servant. It is only that retiring age which would be affected by the break, as it were, in his service. It is that break which must be assumed to be filled in, as it were, by service in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) asked me the more general question whether I thought that this provision might serve to deter some of the few people in this class from seeking re-employment. I do not see why it should, and I do not think that it would, because they would have earned and would still be entitled to such reduction in their retiring age as they had already earned. They are, therefore, no worse off, and as soon as they have reached that retiring age they will then be able to qualify for additional pension. They will, to that extent, he better off than people who have served the whole of their service in the United Kingdom. It is one of the favourable features of the Civil Service pension scheme that it is possible for re-employment to add to their pension in this way, and the provisions compare very favourably with what generally is available outside the public service.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE (SHELTERS)

10.39 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): I beg to move,
That the Civil Defence (Shelter) (Maintenance) (Amendment) Regulations, 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
These Regulations are required because of the coming into force on 1st April of the London Government Act, 1963. They have been prepared at the request of the Greater London Council and the London boroughs. The purpose of the Regulations is to confer on the Greater London Council the functions of maintaining existing civil defence shelters for occupants of blocks of flats formerly owned by the London County Council. By reason of Section 23(1) of the London Government Act, those blocks of flats vest in the Greater London Council on 1st April, 1965. Under Section 49(1) of the London Government Act, 1963, responsibility for civil defence functions generally is placed on the London borough councils. If, therefore, these Regulations were not made, responsibility for maintenance of the shelters formerly the concern of the London County Council would pass on 1st April to the appropriate London boroughs.
The Greater London Council and the new London borough councils consider, however, that it would be desirable and convenient that the work should continue to be done, as it was done by the L.C.C., as part of the normal maintenance of the estates. The draft Regulations are intended to give effect to this wish.
The opportunity has also been taken to omit the reference to Luton from the Schedule to the Civil Defence (Shelter) (Maintenance) Regulations, 1956, which lists certain county districts having the same functions under the Regulations as county boroughs. The reason is that the reference has become redundant in consequence of Luton becoming a county borough.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on having in the Vote Office tonight copies of the Regulations which these Amend-

ment Regulations are designed to amend. We had a little trouble over this the other night, and I am glad, if I may say so with respect, that it taught him a lesson.

Mr. George Thomas: I have learned it.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman had better not speak too soon.
The hon. Gentleman told the House that these Regulations are made at the request of both the Greater London Council and the London borough councils. This is important because, as he will realise, they are contrary to the main provisions of the London Government Act. If I understand the position correctly, the Civil Defence Act, 1948, by Section 2, gave the designated Minister power to make regulations for local authorities to carry out certain civil defence functions. At that time the designated Minister was the Minister of Health, and I am not quite sure how the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the form of the hon. Gentleman, turns up as the designated Minister tonight; but, no doubt, the functions were transferred at some stage.
The Home Secretary made Regulations relating to the maintenance of shelters in 1956, the ones which it is now proposed to amend. In those Regulations in 1956, as regards London, the Metropolitan boroughs were to maintain the public civil defence shelters and the residential civil defence shelters except that, in the case of London County Council flats, it was left to the London County Council to maintain them.
The present Regulations follow that, merely substituting the Greater London Council for the London County Council, but, in so doing, they ignore the provisions of the London Government Act, Section 49 of which provides, paraphrasing it, that the functions conferred by the Civil Defence Acts on local authorities shall in certain cases, apart from those referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) which do not concern us, be exercisable by the London boroughs or the Common Council of the City of London. Clearly, by that part of the Section the civil defence duties for maintaining shelters were transferred to the London boroughs and not to the Greater London Council.
I am aware that a later subsection gives the Minister power to vary or


revoke Regulations, for it includes power to amend earlier subsections of Section 49. I imagine that that is the power he is exercising under these Regulations at the moment. But it is a power to amend a Statute by regulation and, rightly, this comes before us as a draft Order to start with because it is amending a Statute. When using that power, the Minister has a strong obligation to justify it and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman justified it in what he has just said.
It looks rather as if the G.L.C., encouraged by the Government, is desperately clinging to such of the L.C.C. functions as it can get its claws on, even little things like maintaining and looking after shelters. What is involved in this? How many shelters are being taken away from the London boroughs and being given to the G.L.C.? What will be the cost of maintenance? How will they be maintained by the remote G.L.C.?
Just because they are shelters in blocks of flats belonging to the G.L.C. is not, in itself, surely, justification for depriving the London boroughs of taking them into their general scheme of civil defence. Such a general scheme was what was envisaged by the 1963 Act and the hon. Gentleman should have given much better justification for altering that provision and for retaining the maintenance and care of these shelters under the G.L.C. instead of the London boroughs taking them into their general scheme of civil defence.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. John Homer: The House is being asked to carry over functions which are designated in the 1956 Regulations, which stem from the Civil Defence Act, 1937. As I read the Regulations, I understand that we are being asked to provide the new authorities of the G.L.C. and the London boroughs with powers designed to perpetuate in existence the shelters which were built or scheduled under the 1937 Act.
In fact, we are being asked to ensure that the new authorities are saddled with responsibility for maintaining shelters which were used in the last war, by and large. I ask my hon. Friend what purpose these Regulations are designed to serve. These shelters were, of course, valuable in the last war. The underground stations and the basements of

scheduled buildings and the deep shelter at Clapham Common served a very useful purpose.
Those of us who worked in civil defence or the fire service during the war know that, even so, sheltering in such places carried with it certain risks —risk of flooding and risk of collapse of the building of which the shelter formed the basement—and that there were tragic incidents which many of us carry in our memories to this day. But they did serve to provide shelter against everything except perhaps a direct hit by a major bomb of the period. The Greater London Council is now being asked to ensure that these existing shelters should be maintained. I want to ask my right hon. Friend what earthly purpose these shelters can perform?
The House is being asked by these Regulations to bless a transaction which is as pointless as it is absurd. The House is being asked to adopt Regulations which have no possible relevancy at this present moment. The Government would have been better advised to allow this whole dreary farce to have come to an end rather than saddle the new authorities with this continuing liability. By approving these Regulations tonight I feel that we may be concealing from ourselves and from the people whom we represent the real facts of the circumstances against which these shelters are designed to provide protection.
I submit that these Regulations, stemming from the 1937 Civil Defence Act, are an echo from a world which no longer exists. It disappeared on 6th August, 1945, at Hiroshima. The Regulations are totally irrelevant. We are not now dealing with 500-pound bombs, we are dealing with 10-millionton bombs, and it is against the former which the very shelters which these Regulations are expected to maintain are supposed to provide protection.
I will not detain the House at this time of night except to say that if a nominal bomb were to be used and exploded at a height of a mile or so above ground, then over the whole of the Greater London Council area, indeed farther than that, from Slough to Tilbury, from Harlow to Barking, the area would


be totally involved in what is known as the fire storm.
Fire storms are phenomena with which we became acquainted in the last war. We created them in Hamburg, Tokio and Dresden, and these storms arose from a mass of incendiary bombs dropped in their thousands. The fires which then resulted combined very quickly to create a holocaust, and the displacement of the hot air caused winds of typhoon strength to rush towards the centre of the burning area.
The people in the shelters were cooked. The air they breathed in Hamburg was calculated to reach a temperature of 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit, nearly the temperature of molten glass. In Hamburg the fire storm covered a mere 12 square miles, and firemen were able to penetrate 100 or 200 yards into that 12-square mile area. But to send fire-fighting teams against a storm of hundreds of square miles, with winds of hurricane force and with radioactive dust swirling around, is totally out of the question.
But inside that storm, as I see it, these Regulations presume that there will be people sheltering in 1937-type shelters. Even if they survived they would emerge into an area of total destruction, of roads covered yards thick in debris cut off from the outside world, areas of the most intensive radiation, unable to move out and with rescue parties unable to move in. Sir, they would die.
The L.C.C., in its last pronouncement on this question—and I quote from the agenda paper for March 1960—said in relation to this obligation of maintaining the then existing shelters, an obligation which the new Regulations will perpetuate:
…a programme of shelter construction has never formed part of Government policy, although it is plain that little or nothing could be done in the short period of warning before a sudden emergency.… it must be admitted that many considerations are involved; for example, on a rough estimate made in 1955 the cost of providing shelter for, say, 2,000,000 people… would be of the order of £60 million, or more than twice the annual expenditure on housing of the Council and the Metropolitan Borough Councils.
Those are now merged in the new London boroughs. It goes on:
Such a programme, even if spread over ten years, would clearly mean a substantial diversion of building labour and capital from

current production. The increase in the potential scale of attack over the last ten years is common knowledge. It is, therefore, more than possible that this vast expenditure, if undertaken, might be largely ineffective by the time the work was completed.
That work was never started and these Regulations only carry over to an unknown number of shelters of unknown locations.
We are asked tonight to continue what, I fear, is the mockery of asking these new authorities to maintain as far as is practicable these shelters which were out of date before the last war ended and which, if another war were to fall upon us and these shelters were to be used, would be nothing but tombs.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I should like to add a short postscript to what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) has said. The London County Council, which still has this duty for a few days until it devolves upon the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan borough councils, decided that there was no defence for Londoners in the event of thermonuclear war and, in pursuance of that view, the L.C.C. did not attempt to argue with the Government when the Government took the view that the construction of new shelters was out of the question.
However, the Regulations make it clear that many shelters remain and that there has to be a transfer of responsibility to the G.L.C. and the Metropolitan boroughs, and, to a smaller extent, to the City Corporation, because someone has to be responsible for maintaining these places. We all know that they are of no value in the event of war, but the responsibility has to be transferred and hence the Regulations.
What is worth pointing out is that this does not mean that because this responsibility is being transferred we are saying that we believe that it is possible for London to carry out any sort of effective defence against thermonuclear war. I rather suspect, although it is not appropriate tonight to say so, that it is time that we went a little further, and I hope that it will not be too long before we begin to decide to relieve the G.L.C. and other councils of the responsibility of performing a function which they and we know to be no more than a ritual farce.
The L.C.C."s view of the matter has been made abundantly clear. Advice has been given in a Government pamphlet on how to
improvise shelter in homes and other premises. There is, however, no plan for any provision of public shelter in anticipation of war, although at the request of the Home office local authorities … have surveyed their areas and have reported to the Home Office such premises as might be suitable for adaptation if need arose".
It goes on to say that the Government have made it clear that they have no intention of contemplating further expenditure on the provision of shelters which might, conceivably, be adequate to carry out some defence in the event of thermonuclear war, although there is ground for believing that whatever might be done in a country like Sweden or, conceivably, Switzerland, any adequate defence in the event of a full-scale thermonuclear war is quite out of the question for this country.
The point that one wishes to make is simply this. We have the Regulations and we are under the necessity of passing on this responsibility. In doing so, let us not pretend that we are passing on a responsibility which is effective in the sense of protecting the people of London against thermonuclear war. There is no such protection, and it is high time that the Government took an early opportunity to say categorically that the function of civil defence in the thermonuclear age is a different function. We ought to think in terms of renaming the function of civil defence, perhaps calling it the civil emergency service and giving the service a function which it can carry out rather than functions which it cannot carry out.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I will try to reply to the questions that have been raised. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) seemed to be anxious lest the Greater London Council was seeking to take to itself as many powers as it could in connection with civil defence. The hon. Member will, I am sure, be relieved to learn that the Council is giving up some of the powers which the London County Council enjoyed and that there has been agreement between the boroughs of London and the Greater London area on this question.
The position in London has always been the subject of special arrangements.

Until 1st April, 1965, the London County Council is responsible for the rescue, ambulance and first-aid sections of the corps, the Metropolitan boroughs being responsible for the headquarters, warden and welfare sections. In addition, the London County Council has such important functions as emergency feeding and the care of the homeless and such minor responsibilities as the maintenance of the shelters. From 1st April next, the Greater London Council will, of the civil defence functions of the London County Council, retain only responsibility for the ambulance and first-aid sections of the corps and responsibility for the maintenance of these shelters if the Regulations are affirmed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) has played a distinguished and responsible part in the country"s fire service. I know that he speaks from great authority. He is a man who speaks out of experience to this House and I pay great heed to anything that he says on this difficult question. The question of defence in nuclear war is one that has agitated this House often in the past and, no doubt, will do so again. The task of civil defence is, while acknowledging the horror of megaton bomb attacks, to realise that there may be people outside the immediate area whose lives could be saved if we took the necessary action.
In their Statement on the Defence Estimates 1965, the Government have pointed out in paragraph 200 that
The form of our civil defence preparations in the years ahead is being reviewed in the light of the general reconsideration of defence.
I would indicate to my hon. Friend that the Government reserve their position until that review has taken place.
We were asked how many of these shelters there are on L.C.C. estates. The answer is 450. The cost of maintenance is £1,300 a year. We were further asked what use they would be in future wars. No shelter is of any avail in the area of complete destruction, but it is thought wise, for the time being, to hold on to these shelters. I think that my hon. Friend suggested that they are now so out of date that they ought to be demolished. Even if this view were accepted these Regulations would be required, because somebody would have


to provide the maintenance until demolition became possible, and therefore my hon. Friend"s complaint is not against the Regulations which are before the House now.
I do not propose, and I hope the House will understand, to enter into a great discussion on the Civil Defence policy of the Government, and the problems of nuclear war. These Regulations are concerned with 450 communal shelters on L.C.C. estates. It is a matter of practical administration which has been arranged between the local authorities, and I trust that the House will agree to the arrangement which has been made and affirm the Regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Civil Defence (Shelter) (Maintenance) (Amendment) Regulations, 1965, a draft of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS (HEANOR)

11.7 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office (Mr. George Thomas): I beg to move,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Urban District of Hcanor, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.
This is a formal Order, and I do not suppose that any explanation is required, but, if the House desires it, I shall give one.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, this Order has not been made available in the Vote Office. Earlier this evening I told the hon. Gentleman not to pride himself on it too soon.
On inquiry at the Vote Office, I was told that, this being a local Order, it was not customary for it to be placed in the Vote Office. Quite frankly, I cannot see the difference between a local Order and some general Order. The House is asked to approve an Order laid on the Table. I have acquired the only copy of this Order, the presentation copy, in the Library. That means that no other hon.

Member in the Chamber, except the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt has been supplied with a copy by his Department, has seen a copy of the Order, and yet the House is asked to approve it.
It is not merely an Order applying a section of a certain Act. It has attached to it statutory declarations about a town meeting having been held preliminary to this Order.

Mr. Speaker: There must be some limit to what the hon. Member can discuss on a point of order. If he wants to move a Motion, I shall consider whether or not to accept it. I can tell him that for the last 20 years none of these Orders has ever been laid. They are in common form, save for the district named.

Mr. Graham Page: There must always be a first time, and I was asking for your guidance as to whether Members can carry out their duties properly and approve an Order which is not made available for them in the Vote Office.

Mr. Speaker: That is an argument which the hon. Member could adduce were he to seek to move a Motion—I do not say whether I would accept it—to adjourn the debate on the basis that the Order was not available, but I say no more than that now.

Mr. George Thomas: The purpose of the Order, which has been submitted by Heanor District Council under the procedure laid down in the Schedule to the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, is to extend Section 1 of the Act to the urban district, and thereby to confer on the local justices, who are by delegation the licensing authority under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, power to allow cinematograph exhibitions to be given in the urban district on Sundays. Under Section 1 of the Act of 1932 is so extended, the justices have no such power. It rests only within the discretion of a borough or district council to decide whether steps should be taken with a view to the submission of a draft Order for the extension of Section 1 of the Act.
The council, if it passes a resolution proposing that there should be such a draft Order, has to publish, by means of placards and the local Press, the terms of that draft Order, stating that it proposes to submit it to the Home Secretary for his approval. There must also be


an announcement of a public meeting of local government electors, and the decision of such a meeting is final unless a poll s demanded by not fewer than a hundred electors, or one-twentieth of the electorate, whichever is the lesser, or by the council if the decision of the meeting is against the proposal.
In the case of Heanor, the decision of the meeting held on 21st December, 1964, was in favour of the proposal for cinema shows on Sundays. No request for a poll was delivered to the chairman of the council within the prescribed period, and the decision of the meeting was, therefore, accepted as final. Consequently, and in accordance with all regulations, the Home Secretary has laid before the House the Order extending Section 1 of this Act to the Urban District of Heanor; but the Order cannot come into operation until it is approved by a Resolution of the House and I therefore beg to move that the Order be approved.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not intend to try to deprive Heanor of its cinema on Sundays, which is something we have been told was decided upon at a public meeting; but, as I have said, this Order was not available in the Vote Office and, even if it has been the custom for some years not to lay these Orders, that deprives hon. Members of the opportunity of knowing the subject matter of an Order of this sort. I am not at all sure where the line has to be drawn as between a local and a more general Order being made available in the Vote Office, but I would have thought that there would come an occasion when it might be difficult for us to draw the line and disregard the fact that hon. Members do not have any opportunity in the case of certain Orders to know what they are about, or what they are being asked to approve.
However, the Joint Under-Secretary of State has explained to the House—although he was not going to do so—what this Order is about, and told us that the local inhabitants have held their meeting and requested that the Order should be made. I do not wish to hold it up any further.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Urban District of Heanor, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Edward du Cann discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts; Mr. William Clark added.—[Mr. Sydney Irving.]

Orders of the Day — A.34 ROAD, DIDSBURY (KINGSWAY EXTENSION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: It is in keeping with the finest traditions of this House that time is found to debate problems which, while they may not be of national importance, are of deep and genuine concern to local communities. It is such a problem to which I wish to direct the attention of the House in this debate. The local community on whose behalf I speak is both reasonable and responsible, and I trust that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, with whom I have been in detailed correspondence on the matter, will allow this to inform his attitude in replying.
Stated briefly, the problem is one of providing a safe crossing for pedestrians over the Kingsway extension at Didsbury, Manchester. This road—or race track, as it has sometimes been called—is part of the A.34, and is felt, even by many who do not live in the immediate vicinity, to be one of the most dangerous stretches of road in the Manchester area. One of the principal reasons for the danger is a short section of derestricted highway between a set of traffic lights on the Stockport-Altrincham road, at Gatley, and the Manchester boundary—a distance of approximately half a mile.
This derestriction enables traffic to build up speeds which, despite a warning notice, are often not reduced until the traffic lights at Wilmslow Road, Didsbury, are reached. This presents a nightmare of hazards for those who live between the Manchester boundary and the


traffic lights in Wilmslow Road. Many children attending the Broadoak Primary School, in my constituency, have to negotiate this dangerous section of road in the morning and evening. A policeman is normally on duty at school-starting and school-leaving times, but this protection does not exist during the evenings when the same children are attending Scout groups or meetings of Girl Guides and other social organisations to which they belong. The problem is also a very serious one for elderly people, whose judgment may be impaired by failing sight and who suffer from reduced mobility.
The Chief Constable of Manchester, who, I understand, favours a subway as a solution to this problem, has himself described the pedestrian problem on the Kingsway extension as rather unique. Mr. John Hayes, Manchester"s much respected City Engineer and Surveyor, gave the City Council"s views on 14th December, 1964, when he said that the problem was primarily one of doing something to reduce the very high approach speeds of traffic entering Manchester from the south on the present unrestricted part of Kingsway. An approach was, therefore, made both to the Cheshire County Council and the Cheadle Urban District Council to see if they would support Manchester in a proposal for a 40 m.p.h. speed limit on both the Manchester and Cheshire portions of Kingsway. These two authorities were in favour of such a restriction, and an approach was subsequently made to the divisional road engineer of the Ministry of Transport on the matter.
The Ministry"s official, however, stated that his Department"s policy on such matters was clearly defined, and that conditions on Kingsway south of the Manchester boundary were such that he could not justify recommending to the Minister to agree to a 40 miles per hour restriction. Repeated representations were made to the divisional road engineer on this point, and eventually he decided that the southerly limit of the proposed 40 miles per hour restriction in Manchester could be extended to include the short section of Kingsway adjacent to the service roads.
In view of this promise, Manchester City Council, having first obtained the

assurance of the Chief Constable that the 40 miles per hour speed limit in Manchester would be rigorously enforced, decided to proceed with this proposal. To assist pedestrians, it was decided that the existing 4-ft.-wide central reservation should be widened to 6 ft. when the speed limit came into operation. I understand that the City Council is going ahead with the speed limit restriction on Kingsway, and that the city engineer and surveyor feels certain that Manchester, together with the Cheadle and Gatley Urban District Council, would support any representations for an extension of the 40 miles per hour speed limit to include the present unrestricted section of Kingsway immediately to the south of the city boundary.
For my part, I profoundly hope that a subway or some other solution to this problem will not become a monument to someone who has been killed on the Kingsway extension. If we can accomplish this worthy exercise in preventative social action, it will be a tribute most of all to Mr. Charles H. Clarke, the honorary secretary of the East Didsbury Owner-Occupiers Association, who, on behalf of his association, has worked actively for over five years to find a solution to this problem. He is a person of considerable social conscience. In fighting this campaign, he has had many disappointments and setbacks but has persisted in his efforts to remove the danger to his fellows in the local community of East Didsbury. It was Mr. Clarke who documented the case to me, and, in presenting the case to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I stated that this was a problem deserving of urgent action by his Ministry.
My hon. Friend wrote to me on 1st February, 1965, giving a detailed reply to my representations. There are three points which I should like to take up from his letter. He stated:
An application for a pedestrian crossing at Fairmile Drive, Kingsway, was first made in 1960 and after a thorough investigation and consideration of a vehicle and pedestrian count, our Divisional Road Engineer concluded that a crossing would not be justified.
I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the problem has been seriously exacerbated since 1960 and that there


should be a reconsideration of the decision taken at that time. The second statement in his letter read:
It was noted that pedestrians exercising reasonable care and patience could cross without undue difficulty and that children going to and from school crossed under police control".
As I have stated, there are some occasions when children must negotiate the road without police supervision. Moreover, I am informed by some of the local residents that they have to wait an extremely long time to attempt to cross the road in safety. I hope, therefore, that the Department will reconsider that part of the statement, too. The third part stated:
The difficulty at Kingsway seems to arise mainly during the peak hours and I am afraid pedestrians will experience some delay before being able to cross in safety".
As I explained, many local residents have complained about having to wait for very long periods in order to cross the road.
The Ministry has referred to a census of vehicles using and pedestrians crossing the Kingsway extension, but a census on a road as dangerous as this is, perhaps, not the best guide to the scope of the problem. Many people will no doubt walk a considerable distance down the Kingsway extension to cross it in safety.
I agree that the cost of a subway is not inconsiderable, but it is in my view fully justified by the danger to pedestrians which now exists. There should, I suggest, also be a 40 m.p.h. speed limit throughout the length of Kingsway, and I trust that my hon. Friend will agree that these improvements would meet the needs of the case much better than a controlled crossing. In the opinion of many local residents, an overhead bridge would be an eyesore: it would also be unsuitable for elderly people and mothers with prams. I have great respect for the Parliamentary Secretary and I know that he is extremely anxious to do what he can—

Mr. Arnold Gregory: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but before he leaves that point, may I ask him if he is aware that we in my constituency of Stockport, North have found, in using this stretch of the road between Stockport and Altrincham, that certainly since 1960 the problem has increased because of the extended

use of that roadway with the introduction of the M.6 and the M.62? Will he also take into account the difficulty created by the fact that instead of using this difficult crossing and busy stretch of road, traffic to and from Stockport diverts through Didsbury Road, Heaton Mersey and Parrs Wood, thus avoiding this stretch of road; in other words, easing the pressure on this part of the road but creating problems on the alternative route? I hope that my hon. Friend will mention the importance of this matter in relation to using the alternative means to avoid this stretch of road.

Mr. Morris: I gratefully acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory). I appreciate that there are many hon. Members representing constituencies adjacent to mine who are also vitally concerned that there should be a solution to the problem in consequence of its effects on their constituents.
Indeed, perhaps I could conclude by saying that the Parliamentary Secretary himself has some direct interest in this road, because one part of it passes through the Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency in Staffs. I use the road very frequently. I have travelled more times than I like to remember by car from Manchester to London and I feel that there is no part of the A.34 more deserving of urgent consideration, from the viewpoints of pedestrians and motorists alike, than that section to which I have drawn the attention of the House this evening.

11.32 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): Ever since my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe) (Mr. Alfred Morris) was elected he has made very strong representations on this matter. I recognise at once the sincerity and power of his plea; and that he is truly representing the feelings of his constituents. As he has said, I am rather well acquainted with the A.34. We have a few problems in connection with that road. We recognise that we have not overcome all of them yet, but I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we shall be making more rapid progress in overcoming some of them in the future than has been the case in the past.
The particular problem that he has raised has concerned his constituents for


some time. It is not, I appreciate, simple or straightforward, and I hope that I may be forgiven if some of what I have to say goes into some rather complicated details, but I want to take the trouble to explain the actions that have been taken by my Department in this complicated and troublesome business.
It might be helpful if, first, I said something about our general policy on the provision of pedestrian crossings. The policy we are at present applying is one that we have inherited from our predecessors. I may say that it is not necessarily, in this case, a bad policy for that reason, although there may be some hon. Members who might regard it as unique in this respect. It is a policy that has continued for a decade or more, but that is not to say that we are satisfied at the moment with it.
Transport and traffic conditions are constantly changing, and I want to emphasise at the outset that we are at present engaged on a thorough and comprehensive review of policy relating to pedestrian crossings in order to make sure that it matches the needs of today"s road conditions. In the meantime we continue to be guided by the policy which we have inherited, and which has developed over a considerable period.
Pedestrian crossings were first introduced in this country in 1934, and at that time highway authorities were free to install as many as they wanted. When first introduced, the crossings were generally well respected by motorists, and the initial success of the scheme encouraged a steady increase in their numbers, until a peak figure was reached in the late "forties. But, as the numbers of crossings increased, I am afraid that the drivers" respect for them diminished, and by the late "forties dangerously poor observance of pedestrian crossings had become widespread. As a result, in 1951 the Government of the day decided that a drastic reduction in the number of pedestrian crossings was essential if the crossing was to regain its value as a safety measure. The total throughout the country was reduced by as much as two-thirds, and every effort was then made to secure a higher standard of observance of those which remained.
Two other important changes were made. First, the zebra stripes for better sighting were introduced, partly as a result of an initiative by my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Second, the central Government took over control of the siting of pedestrian crossings. We have, therefore, inherited strict criteria for deciding applications for pedestrian crossings. First, there must be a sufficient volume of traffic to make it difficult for pedestrians to cross the road. Second, the number of pedestrians must be sufficient to ensure that the crossing would be in fairly constant use. Third, there should be a sufficient distance between the site of the crossing and any adjacent crossing or other stopping places for motor vehicles. Fourth, the local police, having an intimate knowledge of the traffic conditions, should support the view that a crossing would be a sound safety measure.
I turn now to the particular case which my hon. Friend has raised. The problem arises at the southern end of Kingsway, between the Wilmslow Road-Parr"s Wood Lane junction and the Manchester boundary. This is known as the Kingsway extension, and includes the Fairmile Drive junction. The whole of Kingsway north of the Manchester boundary, a distance of about three miles, is a dual carriageway road and the central reservation enables pedestrians to cross the road in two stages, concentrating on one stream of traffic at a time. Traffic control signals at Fog Lane-Lane End Road junction and Wilmslow Road-Parr"s Wood Lane junction break up the traffic on Kingsway and so indirectly help pedestrians to cross all along the route as well as directly at the lights themselves.
I can tell the House that new signals will be in operation at Mauldeth Road later this year, and these will, we hope, help further to break up the traffic. In addition, they will have an all-red phase to enable pedestrians to cross.
A traffic census in December, 1962, showed that the pedestrian flow at Fair-mile Drive, to which my hon. Friend referred, was 606 people between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m., and the vehicle flow averaged 1,400 per hour during that period. About half of these pedestrians were children and, as my hon. Friend said, a crossing patrol has been provided to care for them.
Although, naturally, we cannot lay down strict numerical requirements, the present view is—I emphasise that it is the present view—that the number of pedestrians would have to be considerably greater than this to justify a crossing at the point to which my hon. Friend has referred. He recently sent me a letter from the East Didsbury Owner-Occupiers" Association drawing attention to the danger to pedestrians trying to cross the Kingsway extension and stressing the need for some form of pedestrian crossing, subway or bridge. After consideration of the existing traffic conditions, our Divisional Road Engineer still thought that a zebra crossing was not justified, on the criteria I have given, because of insufficient traffic flows; and we have at present accepted this opinion.
As regards the provision of a footbridge or subway, we have said that there is no economic justification at the moment for the Ministry contributing to the cost of either but we would, of course, have no objection to the highway authority constructing a footbridge or subway, provided that it paid for the cost. At the time the Kingsway extension was built, Manchester City Council considered the provision of a subway or bridge at this point but rejected the idea.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of vehicle speeds and speed limits on the Kingsway extension. Let me make it clear that the Fairmile Drive junction is on a section of Kingsway covered at present by a 30 m.p.h. limit. Traffic approaching from the Manchester direction has been subject to this limit and to the breaking up effect of the series of traffic lights for some considerable distance. I think there is no complaint about that section.
My hon. Friend says that traffic from the south, just before reaching Fairmile Drive, passes through an unrestricted zone and has not slowed down as it should when it reaches the junction, so creating danger. Cheadle and Gatley Urban District Council is responsible for the speed limits on nearly all the road to the south of Fairmile Drive. In 1961 it proposed that the whole length of the road

in its area should be subject to a new 40 m.p.h. limit. This would have involved raising the existing 30 m.p.h. limit on part of the stretch and imposing a new limit altogether on the other parts.
When we considered the proposal, our advisers could only agree to the new limit on the part of the road already restricted to 30 m.p.h. We considered that there was not enough development on the part of the road which is south of the Manchester boundary to justify the imposition of a limit on that section, where vehicle speeds are already very high and where it seems doubtful whether a 40 m.p.h. limit could be made effective and enforceable.
We were unable to agree with the Council about this and we have now had to inform it that we intend to make an order raising the 30 m.p.h. limit on the middle stretch to 40 m.p.h., leaving the section mentioned by my hon. Friend unrestricted. Manchester is also proposing to raise the 30 m.p.h. limit on its stretch to 40 m.p.h. and to extend this new limit slightly further to the south of Fairmile Drive.
Thus, if these proposals go through, we shall have, coming south from Manchester, a 40 m.p.h. limit, broken by at least three sets of traffic lights, extending to the south of Fairmile Drive, then an unrestricted stretch round the Mersey crossing and another 40 m.p.h. limit as the road goes further into the area of the Cheadle U.D.C.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Would not my hon. Friend agree that further to reduce the derestriction on the Kingsway extension would mean having a length of only about 650 yards derestricted and that this would make the position somewhat farcical?

Mr. Swingler: At the moment we cannot come to that conclusion.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o"clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a quarter to Twelve o"clock.